Skip to main content

Full text of "The Creative Woman"

See other formats




Winter 1983 


From Law School To The United States Supreme Court 

, Creatine 

A quarterly, Governors State University, Park Forest South, IL 60466 

Vol. 6, No. 2 Winter 1983 

Published under the auspices of the Provost's Office, © Governors State University and Helen Hughes ISSN 0736-4733 


Helen E. Hughes, Editor 
Lynn Thomas Strauss, Managing Editor 
Joan Lewis, Editorial Consultant 
Suzanne Oliver, Art Director 

Leone Giroux Middleton, Graphic Designer 
Joanne R. Creager, Consultant Editor 


Donna Bandstra, Social Sciences 

Margaret Brady, Journalism 

Rev. Ellen Dohner, Religion 

Rita Durrant, League of American Penwomen 

Ann Gerhart, Women's Networking 

Harriet Gross, Sociology/Woman's Studies 

Helene Guttman, Biological Sciences 

Mimi Kaplan, Library Resources 

Young Kim, Communications Science 

Harriet Marcus Gross, Journalism 

Elizabeth Ohm, Library Resources 

Betye Saar, Fine Arts 

Sara Shumer, Political Theory 

Emily Wasiolek, Literature 

Rev. Elmer Witt, Campus Ministries 

Table of contents 


Section I 

Section III 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: 4 

Making History 

by Lynn Thomas Strauss 
Domestic Violence 11 

by Judge Susan Gende 
For The Prosecution 14 

by Laura Schilling, J.D. 
Annotated Bibliography 15 

prepared by Joanne Creager 

Letters to The Editor 
The Donor, a story 

by Carol Amen 
Growing Up In Alaska 

by Margaret S. Hughes 
and June S . Dona 
Announc ement s 
State Of The Quarterly, 
Editor's Column 



Section II 

Lawyerbane 16 

A Poem by Joanne Creager 

Portrait of The Lawyer As Artist 17 
by Susan J. Martin 

Afloat Again 19 

A poem by Sue Saniel Elkind 

I Was a Law School Wife 20 

by Cynthia J. Lee 
Portrait of a Professional 25 

by Joanne Creager 
"This is no way to Live...": 27 

Women Law Students Look at 
The Law School Experience 

by Jullie A. Norman 
The Women in Ward C 31 

A poem by Sue Saniel Elkind 

Interview with an Attorney 32 

by Lynn Thomas Strauss 

This issue was typed on the Lexitron 
word processor by Phyllis Rich. 

The Creative Woman is a quarterly 
published by Governors State University. 
We focus on a special topic in each 
issue, presented from a feminist 
perspective. We celebrate the creative 
achievements of women in many fields 
and appeal to inquiring minds. We 
publish fiction, poetry, book reviews, 
articles, photography and original 
graphics . 


When wise Portia stood in the Vene- 
tian courtroom to cry "The quality of 
mercy is not strained. It droppeth as 
the gentle rain from heaven upon the 
place beneath," it was rare anomaly to 
see a woman as an officer of the court. 
In the centuries since Shakespeare 
praised the virtues of Portia, women 
have continued to be largely excluded 
from the practice of the law, until 
relatively recent years. Now women 
approach 50% of incoming law school 

The experience has been generally 
agreed to be a "mind-bender" as one of 
our writers has described it. If Pro- 
fessor Kingsfield's words strike terror 
("You come in here with your heads full 
of mush and you leave thinking like a 
lawyer.") women have experienced it with 
a special jolt, it would appear. We have 
a woman sitting on the highest bench in 
the land. Others, having studied law, 
become painters. Some, as the author of 
"Lawyerbane," are left with a profound 
distaste for the system and the cynical 
ones who practice it. 

Joanne Creager, our consultant 
editor for this issue, is an attorney 
working as legislative assistant for 
Wohl, Cinnamon, Hagedorn and Dunbar Law 
Corporations in Sacramento, California, 
a public interest lobbying group. She 
received her J.D. degree from Southwest- 
ern University School of Law in 1978 and 
an M.A. in English from Loyola Univer- 
sity of Los Angeles in 1973. 

Joanne provided the initial enthu- 
siastic spark for this issue and has 
contributed her expertise as well as 
support. As a charter subscriber to 
The Creative Woman, she was eager to 
serve in an editorial capacity. Her 
insights as a mover in the real/unreal 
world of the state legislature and her 
sensitivity to the effects of the ro- 
manticization of law as a profession 
have added significant dimensions to 
this issue. 

Among the many aspects of the topic 
which we have not been able to include 
are: the place of gender in the court- 
room, women as defendants, as witnesses, 
and laws that affect women. In Kim 
Keegan's letter and in Carol Amen's hor- 
rific short story, "The Donor," we point 
to what is fast becoming an issue of 
overriding concern — biomedical ethics. 



by Lynn Thomas Strauss 

With the appointment of Sandra Day 
O'Connor as the first woman to sit on 
the Supreme Court of the United States, 
a central issue comes under considera- 
tion. Does her appointment represent a 
basic acceptance of women of achievement 
into one of the highest seats of power 
in our government, or is this merely a 
token appointment, unaccompanied by any 
change in attitude by the male power 

Also to be considered here is the 
issue of evaluating the effects of a 
woman's presence on the Supreme Court 
bench. Will a new point of view or a 
different sensibility be felt in de- 
liberations or written opinions? 

The first Supreme Court appointed 
by George Washington in 1790 consisted 
of six justices. Each was white, male, 
and protestant. 

The first Catholic member, Roger 
Taney, was appointed by Andrew Jackson 
in 1836. The first Jewish Justice was 
Louis Brandeis, appointed by Woodrow 
Wilson in 1916. The first Black Jus- 
tice, Thurgood Marshalljwas appointed 
by Lyndon Johnson in 1967 and the first 
female Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor was 
appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. 

The current Supreme Court of the 
United States seats one black, one 
Catholic, one woman, and six white 
male protestants. 

President Reagan's selection in 
September 1981 of Sandra Day O'Connor 
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme 
Court since 1975 was generally regarded 
as politically astute. His selection 
won the endorsement of Senators ranging 
ideologically from conservative Barry 
Goldwater, Republican of Arizona to 
liberal Teddy Kennedy, Democrat of 
Massachusetts. To avoid further ali- 

enation of women's rights advocates 
during his campaign for presidency, 
Ronald Reagan had pledged he would fill 
"one of the first Supreme Court vacan- 
cies" by appointment of "the most quali- 
fied woman." 

While 51-year old Mrs. O'Connor is 
described by friend and foe alike to be 
notably bright, extremely hard working, 
meticulous, deliberate, cautious and 
above all, a Republican conservative 
with a reputation for excellence, she 
received only a qualified endorsement 
from the American Bar Association. The 
Association noted that she lacked exten- 
sive court experience but did meet "the 
highest standards of judicial tempera- 
ment and integrity and had the required 
professional qualifications." 

Most observers agree that she lacks 
federal judicial experience. The Nation 
in a July 25, 1981 editorial comments 
that Mrs. O'Connor was chosen almost en- 
tirely because of her sex rather than 
individual merit. She was not, says The 
Nation , an exceptional lawyer, nor is 
she an outstanding judge. The Arizona 
Bar Association rates her performance as 
rather poor. Although undeniably intel- 
ligent and hard-working, she hasn ' t had 
experience with the constitutional and 
statutory problems that routinely come 
to the Supreme Court, or even with more 
mundane kinds of Federal law. Her work 
as a state trial and intermediate apel- 
late judge has focused on routine local 
matters like landlord-tenant, or work- 
er's compensation and criminal law. 

Although the appointment of Sandra 
Day O'Connor is seen as victory by 
women's movement leaders and marks a 
critical application of affirmative 
action, most reports and commentators 
agree that it is too soon to predict 
the effect of her presence on the 
formerly all male bench or the forma- 
tion of her judicial philosophy as 
Associate Supreme Court Justice. 

She comes to a Court that has been 
so badly split in recent years that in 

many cases no more than three of four 
Justices could agree on any single 
opinion. The present Court has two 
conservatives, two liberals, and five 
swing votes. Mrs. O'Connor replaces 
Justice Potter Stewart, who was one of 
the swing votes often crucial in decid- 
ing key issues. Whether the new Justice 
will become strongly aligned with the 
conservative wing or will fill the posi- 
tion of that critical fifth swing vote 
is a question being closely debated. 

Charles D. Kelso, writing in the 
Pacific Law Journal (13:259-72 January 
1982) in his article titled "Justice 
O'Connor replaces Justice Stewart: What 
Effect on Constitutional Cases?" states 
(after examination of the pattern of 
votes in which Stewart's vote with the 
majority was crucial to the outcome) 
that "if the assumption is made that 
Justice O'Connor will more often than 
not align herself with conservative 
rather than liberal positions, her 
presence on the Court will not change 
many of its decisions. Of course, if 
Justice Brennan or Justice Marshall 
were to retire during President Reagan's 
term and were succeeded by conservative 
Justices, then a number of old doctrines 
might well be reexamined." 

Mrs. O'Connor's conservative bias 
is of course one of the primary reasons 
why she was chosen by President Reagan 
and during the Court's first term which 
began in October, Mrs. O'Connor has in 
48 of 52 written opinions cast her lot 
with former law school classmate William 
Rehnquist and with Chief Justice Burger 
to help forge a clear conservative ma- 
jority on a number of crucial issues. 

On January 12, 1983 she provided 
the fifth vote for a bare majority rul- 
ing that ordinary taxpayers could not 
sue in federal court to prevent govern- 
ment from giving away valuable surplus 
property to a religious group. The 
decision turned upon the concept of 
"standing" or who is a proper party to 
bring a suit, a concept that is at the 
center of the philosophical debate over 
how active the federal courts should be 
in attempting to redress wrongs. The 
case was Valley Forge Christian College 

vs. Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State. 

Mrs. O'Connor concurred with 
Justice Rehnquist, who derided the 
notion "that the business of federal 
courts" is to go around "correcting 
constitutional errors." 

Justice Brennan, dissenting 
sharply, accused the majority of en- 
gaging in "a dissembling enterprise" 
that will slam the courthouse door in 
the faces of people who believe that 
their constitutional rights have been 

In another case involving the 
role of the federal courts, O'Connor 
voted with five other Justices to up- 
hold a 40 year prison sentence for a 
Virginia man convicted of possession 
of less than nine ounces of marijuana. 
In an unsigned opinion the majority 
chastised the lower federal court 
judge for daring to second-guess a 
state court judge and state legisla- 
ture. The justices in the majority 
said that federal courts could con- 
sider apparently unfair sentences 
only in extreme cases. The example 
they gave was life imprisonment for 
overtime parking. 

One instance in which Justice 
O'Connor separated herself from the con- 
servative block was on January 19, 1982. 
She provided the fifth vote to strike 
down a death sentence that had been im- 


posed on a 16 year old boy in Oklahoma. 
The sentence was invalid, the court 
ruled, because the sentencing judge had 
refused to take the youth's troubled and 
violent upbringing into account. Chief 
Justice Burger wrote the dissent stating 
that the lower court had been aware of 
the boy's bleak past. This dismissal 
suggested the same brand of impatience 
expressed last year by Mr. Rehnquist 
when he urged judges to get on "with the 
business of putting people to death and 
not be deterred by continuing appeals." 

In the case of the 16 year old boy, 
Mrs. O'Connor so strongly disagreed with 
Burger and Rehnquist that she filed a 
separate opinion castigating the dis- 
senters. She noted that the Court had 
always taken extraordinary care when the 
death penalty was involved, because 
capital punishment is final. As to 
whether the judge considered the boy's 
background, O'Connor said, "Let's take 
time to find out and be sure." If the 
case returns to the Court after the 
state judge considers the boy's past, 
she may well vote to have him executed. 
She had as a member of the Arizona 
Senate voted to reinstate capital pun- 
ishment and later as a judge did impose 
the death penalty. 

As an exponent of judicial re- 
straint, Mrs. O'Connor is not expected 
to be an instrument of social change. 
Her prominence, however, as role model 
and symbol of women's improving status 
is positive indication of social change. 

Linda Greenhouse, writing in the 
N.Y. Times in October 1981, suggested 
that O'Connor's political savvy, rela- 
tive youth and continued openness to the 
world at large are at least as signifi- 
cant as gender. Sex, in Greenhouse's 
opinion, may turn out to be the least 
important difference. 

However, Lyle Dennistor points out 
in MS Magazine (October 1981) that the 
current Supreme Court's attitude about 
women is shaped by an obsession with 
female sexuality: the undeniable fact 
that only women can get pregnant and 
give birth. This obsessive stereotype 
of women continues to influence the 

Court's decision on cases involving 
issues of custody, family law, homosex- 
uality, property law and more. Until 
the Court can separate out pregnancy 
and birth as functions of some but not 
all women during some but not all of the 
time, those functions will continue to 
be used as a synonym for gender and thus 
as excuse for restricting all females as 
a category for all of their lives. 

No one can predict how Mrs. 
O'Connor will grow into her new posi- 
tion, and the frequently noted lack of 
federal judicial experience makes it 
difficult to evaluate Mrs. O'Connor's 
judicial philosophy. The Senate Con- 
firmation hearings did little to provide 
information or insight into this criti- 
cal question. 

She side-stepped questions on par- 
ticular issues and said her decisions as 
judge on any issue would be based not on 
her personal bias or ideological prefer- 
ences but on her knowledge of the law 
and its application. In an opening 
statement to the Senate Confirmation 
Committee on the first day of her con- 
firmation hearings September 9, 1981, 
Mrs. O'Connor assured her questioners 
that she was an advocate of judicial 
restraint: "Judges are not only not 
authorized to engage in executive or 
legislative functions, they are ill- 
equipped to do so." 

Gracious, controlled and thorough- 
ly prepared, she prevailed as much by 
her manner as by the substance of her 
answers. On September 15, 1981 all but 
one of the 18 members of the Judiciary 
Committee voted in her favor. On 
September 22 her appointment received 
approval of 91 senators. 

Mary McGory wrote of Sandra Day 
O'Connor in the Washington Post (Septem- 
ber 10, 1981) "She is an achieving woman 
without an edge. She is good-looking 
without being alienatingly beautiful and 
bright without being alarmingly intel- 
lectual." Reporting on her appearance 
before the Senate Committee, Julia 
Malone noted in the Christian Science 
Monitor (September 10, 1981) "Dressed 
in a tailored violet suit and soft 

feminine blouse, Mrs. O'Connor struck 
an even balance of professionalism and 

O'Connor was born the oldest of 
three children in El Paso, Texas. Her 
family still enjoys the 155,000 acre 
Lazy B Ranch in southeast Arizona where 
she grew up. Her pioneer grandfather 
from Vermont founded the ranch in the 
1880 's thirty years before Arizona be- 
came a state. The ranch, remote and 
without electricity, was a modest girl- 
hood home. Young Sandra Day went to 
public high school and then to Stanford 
University where she majored in econom- 
ics and received a B.A. degree magna 
cum laude in 1950. In 1952 she received 
her law degree from Stanford where she 
was third in the class of 102 students 
and editor of Stanford Law Review . That 
same year she married. Her husband is 
a senior partner in a Phoenix law firm. 

Justice O'Connor acknowledges per- 
sonal experiences of discrimination on 
the basis of sex when applying for jobs 
after law school. Firms in Los Angeles 
and San Francisco to which she applied 
had never hired a female attorney be- 
fore — one even offered her a job as 
legal secretary. She shifted her course 
to public service and found a job as 
County deputy attorney in San Mateo, 
California. The first of three sons 
was born in 1957 while the family was 
living in Phoenix. In 1959 she opened 
her own law firm working part-time. 
After five years as a full-time home- 
maker, she returned to full employment 
in 1965 as assistant attorney general 
for Arizona. In 1969 she was appointed 
to replace Senator Isabel A. Brugess in 
the Arizona Senate, where she easily 
won reelection in 1972. Respected for 
a meticulous approach to legislative 
duties as exemplified by her insistence 
upon factual accuracy^in 1972 she was 
elected majority leader, becoming the 
first woman to hold that office in any 

During five years in the senate she 
compiled a voting record that confirms 
her place in the Republican mainstream. 
She supported measures to limit govern- 
ment spending, to revise tax laws, to 

equalize the finances of more affluent 
and less affluent counties, to provide 
tax relief for funding of flood control 
and to restore the death penalty. She 
championed revision of statutes which 
were discriminatory in the number of 
hours women are permitted to work, 
developed model legislation allowing 
women to manage property jointly held 
with husbands, and she was in favor of 
the Equal Rights Amendment. 

In the 1981 confirmation hearing, 
abortion became a significant issue. 
Mrs. O'Connor had in 1970 voted in 
judiciary committee in support of a 
bill to repeal Arizona's restrictive 
abortion statutes. She opposed a 1974 
resolution urging congress to pass an 
anti-abortion amendment to the consti- 

On other proposals involving abor- 
tion she supported restriction of state 
funds for abortions for the poor and a 
bill giving the right to hospital em- 
ployees not to assist in performing 
abortions. Toward the end of her sec- 
ond senate term, Mrs. O'Connor decided 
to switch to the judicial branch of the 
government. In a hard-fought election 
in 1974 she won the judgeship on Mari- 
copa County Superior Court formerly held 
by David J. Perry, also a Republican. 
Diligence, sternness and fairness char- 
acterized her performance on the bench. 
Though not considered a lenient sen- 
tencer, she showed genuine concern over 
conditions in prisons. All of her hear- 
ings not held in chambers were open to 
the public. 

Mrs. O'Connor served as an alter- 
nate delegate to the 1972 Republican 
National Convention. She served as co- 
chairman of the Arizona Committee to 
reelect the President. Preferring law 
to politics, she resisted urgings to 
run for Governor in 1978 and instead 
accepted appointment to the Arizona 
Court of Appeals by Democratic gover- 
nor Babbitt who said, "Her intellec- 
tual ability and her judgment are 

Service on the court of appeals 
gave little opportunity to make known 


her views on important controversial 
social issues. But in January 1981 she 
participated in a symposium "State 
Courts and Federalism in the 1980s" in 
Williamsburg, Virginia in which she did 
express aspects of her judicial philoso- 
phy. She followed her remarks with an 
essay in William and Mary Law Review 
(Summer 1981). She argued that "it is 
a step in the right direction to defer 
to the state courts ... on federal 
constitutional questions when a full 
and fair adjudication has been given 
in the state court." Maintaining that 
state and federal judges are equally 
competent, she pointed out, "When the 
state court judge puts on his or her 
federal court robe, he or she does not 
become immediately better equipped 
intellectually to do the job." Her 
recommendations for decreasing the case- 
load of federal courts and reducing in- 
tervention of federal courts in state 
and local matters agreed with the poli- 
cies of newly elected President Reagan. 
So when the opportunity arose, Reagan 
appointed O'Connor in a move to gain 
favor with women's rights advocates who 
were unhappy with his stand on ERA and 
other relevant issues. 

Thus at a time when women consti- 
tute less than 7% of federal judiciary 
Sandra Day O'Connor, whatever her judi- 
ciary philosophy, will bring to the 
Supreme Court a solidly grounded under- 
standing of the real lives of women in 
contemporary society. This does not 
suggest that O'Connor will abandon her 
devotion to legal precedent or suddenly 
become a judicial activist on women's 
issues. But perhaps, suggests Lynn 
Schafran writing for MS, she will bring 
to the Courts' deliberations on issues 
affecting women the touchstone of 
reality that has been so glaringly 


"Reading Justice Sandra Day O'Connor" 
by C. R. Schenker Jr. Catholic 
University Law Review 31 : 36 5-514 
Spring 1982. 

"Justice O'Connor Replaces Justice 

Stewart: What Effect on Consti- 
tutional Cases?" by C. D. Kelso 
Pacific Law Journal 13:259-72 
January 1982. 

"Justice O'Connor's First Six Months" 
by N. A. Lewis New Republic 
186:17 March 107T982 

"Editorial" The Nation July 25 - 
August 1, 1981. 

Current Bibliography , Vol. A3, No. 1 
January 1982. 

New York Times Biographical Service 
July 7, 1981. 

"Two Women" by Jeff Stein Progressive 
November 1981, p. 14. 

MS. 10:71-2, October 1981. 

National Review , 33:1182-3, October 16 




Biographical Data 

Born March 26, 1930 in El Paso, Texas, daughter of Harold A. Day 
and Ada Mae Wilkey Day. Married John Jay O'Connor III in 
1952. Three sons, Scott, Brian, and Jay. 


Stanford University, B.A., 1950, magna cum laude; LL.B., 1952, 
Order of the Coif, Board of Editors, Stanford Law Review. 

Judicial Offices 

Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United 
States Supreme Court on July 7, 1981; confirmed by the United 
States Senate on September 22, 1981; and took oath of office on 
September 25, 1981. 

Appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by Governor Bruce Bab- 
bitt and served from 1979 to 1981. 

Elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Phoenix, Ari- 
zona, and served from 1975 to 1979. 

Legislative Offices 

Appointed State Senator in 1969 and subsequently reelected to two 
two-year terms, serving in the Arizona State Senate from 1969 to 
1975; elected Senate Majority Leader in 1972; served as Chairman 
of the State, County, and Municipal Affairs Committee in 1972 and 
1973; also served on the Legislative Council, on the Probate Code 
Commission, and on the Arizona Advisory Council on Intergovern- 
mental Relations. 

Legal Positions 

Deputy County Attorney, San Mateo County, California, 1952 to 
1953; Civilian Attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frank- 
furt, Germany, 1954 to 1957; private practice of law in Maryvale, 
Arizona, 1958 to 1960; Assistant Attorney General, Arizona, 1965 
to 1969. 

Civic Activities 

Member, National Board of the Smithsonian Associates, 1981 to 
present; President, member, Board of Trustees, The Heard Mu- 
seum, 1968 to 1974, 1976 to 1981; member, Salvation Army Advi- 
sory Board, 1975 to 1981; member, Vice President, Soroptimist 
Club of Phoenix, 1978 to 1981; member, Board of Visitors, Arizona 
State University Law School, 1981; member, Liaison Committee 
on Medical Education, 1981; member, Advisory Board, and Vice 
President, National Conference of Christians and Jews, Maricopa 
County, 1977 to 1981; member, Board of Trustees, Stanford Uni- 
versity, 1976 to 1981; member, Board of Directors, and Secretary, 
Arizona Academy, 1969 to 1975; member, Board of Junior Achieve- 
ment, Arizona, 1975 to 1979; member, Board of Directors, Phoenix 
Historical Society, 1974 to 1978. 

Other Activities 

Member, Anglo-American Exchange, 1980; Chairman, Arizona Su- 
preme Court Committee to Reorganize Lower Courts, 1974-1975; 
Chairman, Maricopa County Bar Association Lawyer Referral 
Service, 1960-1962; former member, State Bar of Arizona Commit- 
tees on Legal Aid, Public Relations, Lower Court Reorganization, 
Continuing Legal Education; Chairman, Maricopa County Juvenile 
Detention Home Visiting Board, 1963-64; Chairman, Maricopa 
County Superior Court Judges' Training and Education Commit- 
tee, 1977-79; member, National Defense Advisory Committee on 
Women in the Services, 1974-74; member, Arizona State Personnel 
Commission, 1968-69; Vice Chairman, Arizona Select Law En- 
forcement Review Commission, 1979-80; member, Maricopa 
County Board of Adjustments and Appeals, 1963-64; member, Ari- 
zona Criminal Code Commission, 1974-76. 

• Memberships in Professional Organizations 

American Bar Association, State Bar of Arizona, State Bar of Cali- 
fornia, Maricopa County Bar Association, Arizona Judges' Associ- 
ation, National Association of Women Judges, Arizona Women 
Lawyers' Association. 



Susan B. Gende , Circuit Judge 
14th Judicial District of Illinois 

The Illinois Domestic Violence Act 
(IDVA) was enacted by the Legislature 
and became effective March 1, 1982. 
(Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 40, 
Sections 2301-2 - 230 - 13, 1982). 

The Legislature provided that this 
new legislation become part of the Dis- 
solution (divorce) section of the Illi- 
nois law. It is important to note that 
one need not be married or seeking a 
divorce to make use of the new law. 

Police and other law enforcement 
officers have historically been frus- 
trated for various reasons when domestic 
violence has been called to their atten- 
tion. The new law deals with many of 
these frustrations. 

The Illinois Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence (ICADV) located at 931 
South Second Street, Springfield, Illi- 
nois (217-789-2830) has printed excerpts 
from the law which are useful tools for 
agencies or volunteers involved in at- 
tempts to deal with and eradicate vio- 
lence in the home and its aftermath. 
The new act provides help to victims of 
home violence both from the Court and 
law enforcement personnel. 

A victim of abuse may file a peti- 
tion requesting the Court to enter an 
Order of Protection directed toward the 
abuser. Any person may ask the court 
to consider an order of protection in 
behalf of children or elderly persons 
who cannot act for themselves due to 
age or illness. Contrary to earlier 
law, arrests may now be made without 
a warrant where a criminal offense has 
occurred or is occurring between family 
or household members, whether or not 
such violence occurs in the presence 
of an officer of the law. 

The statistics compiled by the 
ICADV from various sources are 
indicative of the severity of the pro- 
blem nationwide. FBI statistics of 1973 
show 25% of all homicides were a result 
of domestic violence. A study by M. E. 
Wolfgang in Philadelphia, covering the 
period between 1948-1952, showed that 
40% of the homicides committed by women 
were related to domestic violence. That 
same study indicated that 40% of the 
women who murdered their partners had 
been repeatedly assaulted by them. 
James Bannon in 1974, and FBI statistics 
of the same year, showed that 40% of 
police injuries and 20% of police homi- 
cides were due to domestic violence. An 
Atlanta Police Department study in 1974 
revealed that 60% of all calls for po- 
lice help at night were related to 
domestic violence. 


The statistics which most clearly 
demonstrate the result of the prevalence 
and tragic results of domestic violence 
in our country are those with regard to 
juvenile and adult offenders. A study 
of violent inmates in San Quentin indi- 
cated a common thread in their lives, 
extreme violence which they experienced 
as children. Similarly, violent juven- 
ile offenders had such violence in their 

The estimation by the ICDV that 
one-half of all married women are beaten 
at least once by their husbands, the 
indication that every social, economic, 
racial, educational and religious group 
of society is affected with such vio- 
lence, estimates of child abuse ranging 
from one million to four million cases 
per year, incest research which indi- 
cates 10% to 20% of American children 
are victims of sexual abuse, and abuse 
of the elderly by relatives, all speak 
to the need for the existence and util- 
ization of the new legislation in Illi- 
nois and other states. 

Victims of such abuse — children, 
elderly, spouses and persons sharing 
a residence with others — clearly need 
assistance so that the legislation is 
effectively used. Response to Domestic 
Violence Centers in Illinois has been 
documented. The Center for Battered 
Women in Chicago assisted 1,400 victims 
in a two-year period before it closed 
for lack of funds. The Illinois Coali- 
tion has 37 member organizations devel- 
oped since 1978. In 1981, 12,000 women 
and their children were served by the 
ICADV member programs. The services 
provided included 62,000 days of shel- 
ter, 67,500 hours of support services, 
counseling, transportation and inter- 
vention services. Title XX monies have 
been utilized, and a new funding source 
is now available from increases in mar- 
riage license and dissolution of mar- 
riage filing fees. 

The Domestic Violence Act applies 
to persons related by blood or marriage, 
ex-spouses, individuals sharing a common 
household, parents and children. 

Any person who hits, chokes, kicks, 
threatens, harrasses or interferes with 
the personal liberty of a household mem- 
ber (except reasonable parental disci- 
pline) has broken the law. The court, 
upon petition, may issue an order of 
protection on the victim's behalf to: 
protect from further abuse; order the 
offender to pay support, medical costs 
and legal expenses; award child custody; 
prevent child snatching; prohibit de- 
struction of victim's property; require 
the offender to undergo counseling and 
offer other relief which the court finds 
appropriate. Violation of provisions so 
ordered is a Class A misdemeanor. 

To obtain an order of protection, 
ask your attorney or (if indigent) Legal 
Aid, to file a petition, request an 
order of protection in conjunction with 
your divorce proceedings if you are di- 
vorcing, ask the State's Attorney's of- 
fice to request an order of protection 
if a criminal prosecution (such as a 
battery) is in progress. 

The law also provides that law en- 
forcement officers use reasonable means 
to prevent further abuse by arranging 
for victims to be transported to a medi- 
cal facility or safe shelter, accompany 
victims to their residence to get 
belongings, arrest violators where 
appropriate, file a police report with 
the victim receiving a copy, advise the 
victim of his/her rights. The victim 
may go to the State's Attorney's office 
to press criminal charges. 

All those concerned about domestic 
violence, whether victims, friends of 
victims, members of victims' households, 
agency personnel, teachers, lawyers, 
medical personnel, clergy or citizens 
aware of such violence, have, it appears 
logical to conclude, a duty to help 
eradicate this tragic and pervasive tear 
in the fabric of our country. 

The courts stand ready to exercise 
the authority the Legislature has given 
them to assist in the eradication of 
domestic violence. The courts need your 
help to make sure a petition is filed 
for them to consider so that orders of 
protection may be issued. 


From California Women , October/ 

November 1981, published by the 

California Commission on the 

Status of Women. 

questioned the objectivity of white 
Anglo-Saxon male judges who have been 
presiding over us all, male and female, 
of every color and ethnic background. 

"The elevation of a woman, Sandra 
Day O'Connor, to the U.S. Supreme Court 
for the first time has sparked renewed 
concern as to whether women judges can 
be objective on the bench, particularly 
in dealing with such highly emotional 
and female-oriented issues as abortion 
and rape. This erroneous and presump- 
tuous apprehension is premised on sex- 
ually stereotypical thinking which his- 
torically has permeated so much of our 
male-dominated culture, including the 
legal and judicial professions. 

It is a startling revelation that 
over the decades so few among us have 

The woman who meets the traditional 
qualifications for the Supreme Court to- 
day can be expected to perform equally 
with her male counterparts and can be 
counted upon to be at least as objective 
and fair as her 'brethren.' And if in 
the intrapersonal , complex and trans- 
cendent judicial decision-making pro- 
cess, she introduces a long overdue 
female perspective, so be it!" 

— Joan Dempsey Klein 
Presiding Justice 
California Court of Appeals 
President, National Associ- 
ation of Women Judges 

-For the first time in its history, over 
half of the 191 first-year students 
entering the University of California 
at Davis School of Law in 1981 were 
women. Fifty-two percent of the 
entering class were female. 

-A study by the American Bar Foundation 
shows that by 1980 the percentage of 
women lawyers, though still small, was 

more than double what it had been ten 
years earlier. Women were 7.5 percent 
of all attorneys in 1980, compared to 
2.8 percent a decade ago. 

-Seven years after graduating from 
Harvard University Law School, 25% of 
the men, but only 1% of the women, 
were partners in law firms. 



by Laura Schilling, J.D. , Deputy 
District Attorney, Santa Clara County 

I've been prosecuting felons for 
several months now — the assignment has 
allowed me a firmer feeling of profes- 
sionalism — misdemeanors are so volumi- 
nous and endless and relative as com- 
pared to the wrongdoing I now try to 

Right now, and for the last few 
days, I am aware of the emotional ef- 
fects, and wonder where they'll take 
me . . . 14-year old defendents in 
homicide cases, and just generally 
the array of transgressions that are 
strong statements about the perpetra- 
tors, society, the victims, punishment, 
politics, etc. 

Apparently, I am good as a trial 
attorney, and I'm glad to be able to do 
trials . . . but the exposure takes its 
toll, and I worry about hardening. A 
defendant pled guilty to one count of 
rape last week, and I was aware of not 
having fully believed the victim. I was 
surprised. The same skepticism that 
makes a good attitude for cross-examina- 
tion can creep into all phases of your 
life. It's hard to know when to leave 
it — hopefully some time before I become 
unfit to do anything else. 

Today a judge was sure I hadn't 
been in his courtroom before, because, 
as he put itj"I wouldn't forget a face 
like that." I decided to feel compli- 
mented, which had very little to do with 
being a lawyer. I think we should each 
try to be who we really are, as we pur- 
sue our professions. At the same time, 
I am fully aware that the compliment 
could easily have been interpreted as a 
sexist assault; and I could have shown 
an ugly reaction. 

It may be that being a woman is 
having someone open the door for you, 
especially if your arms are filled with 
cases, lawbooks, and a briefcase. I 
have always been genuinely grateful for 
the help. At the same time, I assume 
that a man would do this for a male 
colleague as well. 

Some months ago, a late-middleaged 
attorney, who had not gotten his way, 
mumbled, "Your sure are pretty to be 
such a hard-ass D.A. ," as he left the 
j udge ' s chambers . 

It seemed such a strange thing to 
say, don't you think? I suppose my be- 
ing a D.A. and a woman struck him as 
contradictory. It has never occurred 
to me in that way. 

The challenge is in staying as 
natural as possible, trying to feel like 
you belong among all these men. The 
challenge is in not becoming caricatures 
of men, which we will do if we hide our 
real thoughts, feelings, and reactions. 
(This is something men are much better 
at.) This is quite common among women 
attorneys I've met. 

The world does not need women using 
men as models. It needs women being 
women. It needs our values. We are all 
just beginning to realize how important 
those values really are. I think it has 
to do with processes, and patience, and 
endurance. All of which have nothing to 
do with any laws written so far. It has 
nothing to do with being neither a woman 
nor a lawyer first, but with being both , 
without any internal sense of contradic- 
tion. Each of us in our own way. 

Being a woman and a lawyer has much 
to do with who you are , and very little 
to do with being a lawyer. Being a 
lawyer has to do with knowing the facts 
of your case, and the applicable law, 
and little to do with gender. 



prepared by 
Joanne R. Creager 

"The Partnership Push," Savvy , March 
1980, and "Outsiders Within," Savvy , 
October 1981 are two excellent articles 
dealing with women lawyers, and the 
problems encountered in trying to get 
ahead in a traditional law firm setting. 

Sexist Justice . Karen De Crow, Vintage 
Books, NY, 1974. Somewhat dated, yet 
(ironically) timeless nonfiction account 
of the history of women's legal status 
in America. 

Rights and Wrong ' s — Women ' s Struggle for 
Legal Equality , Nicholas et al, Feminist 
Press, Old Westbury, NY 1979. Basic, 
easily accessible, would make good read- 
ing for young feminists. 

Women and Law , microfilm (40 reels), 
Women's History and Research Center, 
2325 Oak Street, Berkeley, CA 94708. 
Please refer to review in The Creative 
Woman, Vol. 3, No. 1, Summer 1979, 
p. 26. This outstanding microfilm 
series, a real databank on the subject, 
is indexed and covers: law in general, 
politics, employment, education, prison, 
blacks and law, and third world women. 

Women in Law . Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, 
Basic Books, Inc., NY 1981. The most 
definitive work to date devoted exclu- 
sively to the subject of what it means 
to be a woman attorney. 

Women ' s Rights Law Reporter . Rutgers 
Law School. This is a continuing pub- 
lication, dealing with actual case law, 
as well as concepts of interest to 
women in understanding progress in the 
area of legal rights. Any large law 
library should have it available. 

Equal Rights: The Male Stake , Leo 
Kanowitz. University of New Mexico 
Press, 1981. 

"Women's Issues and Male Decision 
Makers: An Analysis of The Burger 
Court," Kathleen Schwede , Graduate 
Student Political Science Department, 
Western Michigan University. (Paper 
given at conference The Woman 
Researcher at Western Michigan 
University on November 12, 1982.) 


(tip <frivj> ftiti) tiift tiift (jM tiift tii& tii& 


Surely there must be lawyerbane! 
Growing slowly as a bristlecone pine- 
pungent, medicinal, aromatic as 
stringent as lii 
a necromantic plant 
the very sprig of which 
makes weak the knees of fatcats 
and stills the upraised jawbone of 
the ass. 


A Time For Oneness 

by Susan J. Martin 

When Joanne Creager, a former stu- 
dent now working for the Catholic Con- 
ference in Sacramento, invited me to 
write an article for this issue of The 
Creative Woman , she suggested that I 
share some of my reflections on my seven 
years of experience as a law teacher. 
As I am now on a one-year leave of ab- 
sence from the law school discovering 
new dimensions in my own life, I find 
it interesting to think about the women 
I've known for whom law school did not 
provide the complete answer or even a 
very good clue to their undeveloped 

In addition to professional and 
financial advancement and a desire to 
serve others, it has been my experience 
that a number of women in law school are 
there, in whole or in part, because of a 
man and their desire to defy, escape or 
please him. These reasons are not with- 
out parallel among male students. More 
than one man is in law school to protect 
himself or to seek vengeance in the wake 
of an acrimonious divorce. And I have 
reason to believe that many single men 
in law school hope to become more at- 
tractive to the opposite sex when they 
have earned their law degrees. 

Nevertheless, I'm better acquainted 
with the motives and problems of women 
in this regard and with the experience 
of one woman in particular. Myrna was 
not one of my students. She is my 
friend, and she is a success story, 
perhaps in part because she did go to 
law school, although the law degree she 
earned in five years of hard work will 
probably never hang in a law office. 

Myrna is a creative woman — a tal- 
ented artist. Her decision to seek 
commercial success and personal fulfill- 
ment as an artist was made while she 
was in law school. 

Before law school, Myrna was mar- 
ried to a successful attorney and lived, 
in her words, "to please my man." 
Married at 21, she expected the wedding 
kiss to seal her happiness as she had 
watched Doris Day and Rock Hudson seal 
theirs in so many movies. For the more 
than ten years that their marriage 
lasted, Myrna lived to please her hus- 
band. He came home each night to a per- 
fectly groomed wife waiting with his 
martini in hand, ready to serve their 
dinner by candlelight. So ingrained 
was this routine in her life as "man 
pleaser" that Myrna continued it in the 
days after her husband announced his 
intention to move out of the house and 
seek a divorce. 

/ Live Alone With My Cat 


Myrna was in law school then. She 
went to law school because her husband 
had encouraged her to, and she thought 
this added accomplishment would make a 
good marriage perfect. She wanted to 
understand her husband's work so they 
would have that to discuss in their 
evenings together. In the first year 
of law school, when Myrna was there to 
please her husband, she was seventh in 
a class of 400 or so students — easily 
in the top one or two percent. When she 
graduated, she had an eighty average, 
ranking in the top fifty percent. Aside 
from the devastation of the divorce, 
Myrna admits that her sole motivation 
when she entered law school was to make 
her husband proud of her. With the 
divorce, she lost the motivation to 
succeed in her studies but gained self- 
confidence in pursuing them to their 

If law school was for her husband, 
Myrna' s art work is for herself. "That's 
why," she says, "I use only my first 
name to sign my works. That's mine. I 
don't use my maiden name. I don't use 
ray married name." 

Myrna' s interest in art, renewed in 
law school, was first aroused when she 
was in high school. She went to the 
High School of Music and Art in New York 
City (the school that provided the in- 
spiration for the movie "Fame.") Her 
father, a well-known concert violinist 
and conductor, taught there. It was 
taken for granted that Myrna would 

study music, but during concerts at the 
school she would frequently wander off 
to the art section to look in awe at the 
sculptures. Years later, when Myrna was 
married and living in Los Angeles, she 
met a local artist, Roberta Kritzer, at 
a sculpture exhibit. Ms. Kritzer of- 
fered to give her lessons and an excited 
Myrna hurried home to get her husband's 
permission. Before long, her works were 
on display at Bamsdall Park, Home Sav- 
ings in Studio City, and the Toluca Lake 
Art Festival. Myrna loved sculpting. 
"It was fantastic to be able to work on 
a head in clay for six months and to 
keep giving it a new nose job each week 
if I didn't like the look. My sculp- 
tures are the children I didn't have." 

During law school, Myrna turned her 
attention from sculpture to linoleum 
block printing. Each "linocut" is done 
by hand in a series of up to 30. These 
works have taken Myrna through the ever- 
changing emotions she has experienced 
since her divorce. "What I couldn't 
seem to verbalize and say to him or to 
anyone else came out in my art work. " 
One of her early works, "A Time for 
Oneness" might well have been titled 
"Separation." The linocut depicts a 
man and a woman who are physically 
close but who are looking away from 
each other. As Myrna began to recover 
from the shock of the divorce and to 
enter into new relationships, more 
optimistic feelings were reflected in 
works such as "Daisy Days or Someone 
Special Brought Me Flowers." Likewise, 
new frustrations found expression in 
"Waiting for His Call" and "Thoughts 
of Him Distract Me." 


: /Kp-h. 

Myrna has no intention of practic- 
ing law but she is not ungrateful for 
her law school experience. She is more 
assertive, more articulate, and she has 
the strength that comes from knowing 
"if I survived that, I can survive 
anything. " 

Quiet Interlude 

Myrna' s most recent linocut is 
called "Looking Back Doesn't Hurt Any 
More." She's having difficulty finish- 
ing it and wonders if it will help to 
retitle it "Looking Back Hurts a Lot 


Less Now." She admits that the memory 
of her marriage and divorce may always 
carry pain for her. But she knows that 
she has survived that pain and the 
rigors of law school. She isn't prac- 
ticing law but she has found success and 
happiness on her own terms. To my mind, 
she more than justifies the inscription 
she wrote on the condolence card she 
sent to her ex-husband when their di- 
vorce was final: "In deepest sympathy 
on the loss of your loved one. She was 
a warm, beautiful woman." 

(Professor Martin is on leave from 
Southwestern University in Los Angeles. 
Myrna Russ may be reached in Los 
Angeles. Her linoouts are currently 
on display at Semion's Gallery in 
Laguna Beach.) 

Waiting For His Call 


At night 

we are like fish 

that swallow each other 


we land 

take separate paths 

in private worlds 


our lost selves 

are afloat again 

heading for each other 

with mouths open 

by Sue Saniel Elkind 


by Cynthia J. Lee 

It's been almost three years now 
since my stint as a law school wife. In 
spite of my feminism, "law school wife" 
seems an apt description. Too often, I 
felt married to an educational regime, 
and only secondarily to my husband, 

Law school became the center of our 
lives, triggering major changes in each 
of us, and testing our relationship in 
unexpected ways. Presented here is a 
personal account of the different stages 
we encountered over the three years of 
Marshall's legal education. 

In sharing my experience as a law 
school wife, I hope to communicate the 
significance of law school for both 
partners in a relationship. Law school 
is not unique in this way. Certainly, 
other life experiences profoundly in- 
fluence a relationship, like the birth 
of a child, or a move to a new city. 
But with its unrelenting intensity, law 
school takes its place alongside other 
events that can seriously affect the 
health and well-being of the life two 
people share. » 

We thought we were well-prepared 
for the law school experience. Our de- 
cision had been a careful one, preceded 
by long discussions. After six years 
of work in state and city government, 
Marshall was certain about his interest 

in law. I fully supported his desire 
to go to law school, and together we 
weighed the alternatives: whether to 
go full- or part-time, whether to apply 
to schools outside of Chicago, whether 
we could live on one income. We were 
both in our late twenties and had lived 
together for four years, including two 
years of marriage. Through those years 
we had coped successfully with many 
changes: new jobs, my own graduate ed- 
ucation, even family deaths. We were 
sensitive to the time and energy demands 
of developing careers, and neither of 
us was a stranger to long work hours. 
Through it all we had managed to find 
time for ourselves, and our relation- 
ship felt sure and steady. 

The shift to a single income ap- 
peared to be the most difficult change 
we would encounter with Marshall in a 
full-time program. No financial support 
was available from our parents, but with 
school loans, my full-time income, and 
his part-time job, we believed we could 
manage. In fact, the notion of becoming 
the primary breadwinner appealed to me. 
My husband had supported me while I was 
in graduate school, and now I had the 
opportunity to return his support. 
Moreover, I was eager to try this new 
role, one I had not been conditioned 
to assume. I viewed this step as real 
progress in a long journey toward inde- 
pendent, self-sufficient womanhood. 
Marshall, a product of his own condi- 
tioning, agreed that this aspect of law 
school would be an important, though 
scary, avenue of growth for both of us. 


We also had role models: people 
who had been in law school or who were 
in the midst of juggling law school and 
home life. It obviously could be done. 
Of course, there were a few rumblings 
from the spouses and roommates of law 
students. I dismissed their dark warn- 
ings as bitter exaggerations, signaling 
relationships in trouble, quite apart 
from law school. In short, Marshall 
and I felt mature and ready to face 
whatever law school trials awaited us. 

And so, in September of 1977, it 

The huge law textbooks were the 
first signs that we were entering a mas- 
sive field of knowledge. The law seemed 
an exciting new frontier, and we both 
tried to understand how it was different 
and similar to our prior learning. I 
emphasize "we" for in the beginning 
weeks it truly felt as if we were tack- 
ling law school together. We shared a 
common frame of reference and enjoyed 
new intellectual challenges. Before 
long, however, it became all too clear 
who was doing the work. I watched as 
Marshall began to struggle with the 
insecurities that surface when one trav- 
els into a foreign territory, feeling 
ill-prepared by any previous experience. 
The point was brought home, literally, 
that law school was not an adventure to 
be taken lightly or casually by either 
of us. 

About two months into the first 
term a communication hurdle emerged. It 
centered around Marshall's attempts to 
share complex principles of law and ex- 
citing case examples with me. Since the 
material was very new to him, he some- 
times could not explain as well as he 
wanted. At the same time, I found my- 
self beginning to feel defensive when- 
ever I did not understand quickly. To 
counter this, I would translate the un- 
familiar legal terms into layman's lan- 
guage, with humor and with a reminder 
that jurors had no legal training. Gen- 
erally, this humor served to ease the 
tension and to underscore the seeming 
pomposity of this technical language. 
It was still important to both of us 
that we share the experience as much 

as possible. I worked harder to com- 
prehend, and as he understood more, he 
found it easier to explain. Eventually, 
we began to enjoy these discussions. 

Overcoming this communication gap 
gave us a sense of the conditioning that 
is a definite part of a legal education. 
Students are encouraged to believe that 
the analytic approach to the law in- 
volves a superior way of thinking that 
is the province of a special few: law 
students and professors, practicing 
attorneys, and judges. We both felt 
that law students, especially those 
right out of college, would find it hard 
to combat the professional elitism and 
arrogance that results from this condi- 
tioning process. While it may be of 
immense value to students who are trying 
to assuage their insecurities in a new 
profession, this elitism can alienate 
old friends, lovers and spouses. For- 
tunately, Marshall had lived a life 
before law school. He knew bright, 
competent people in many fields, and 
he successfully resisted this pull. To 
his credit, he sought out other students 
who were older, more experienced, and 
not afraid to admit their fears. 

In spite of this awareness, there 
were new tensions with old friends dur- 
ing the first year of law school. Our 
friends, and Marshall's friends, pro- 
vided an important emotional anchor to 
him at this vulnerable time. But some- 
times friends became prickly, unsure of 
what his new identity as a lawyer might 
mean for the friendship. Both my hus- 
band and his friends were very sensitive 
to the possibility that his new profes- 
sion might bring rejection. When con- 
versations grew tense, I found myself 
acting as a mediator and, later, as a 
sounding board for Marshall as he tried 
to sort out these tensions. Occasionally 
I was also speaking for myself, not just 
interpreting the reactions of friends. 

Almost as soon as these insights 
were upon me, the first year was over. 
We embarked on a thoroughly enjoyable 
summer of being together again, without 
school to interfere. It felt wonderful 
to have three months away from the pre- 
occupations and schedule of law school. 


I hated to see that summer end. 

Too soon, Marshall was registering 
for classes and buying books. Law 
school was with us once again. There 
was no escaping the fact that we had 
two more long years of the same rou- 
tine ahead of us. The schoolwork was 
voluminous, constant, and unyielding. 
Again our homelife was defined by his 
rigorous study schedule. After a dinner 
together, he would head for his study 
area and another cosmos, without me. 
Our Friday and Saturday nights and 
Sunday mornings were free for us, but 
the spontaneity I treasured had van- 
ished. Gone were impulsive decisions 
to see a film, go shopping together, 
or have dinner with friends during the 
week. Our daily life was rigidly 
structured, and time together became 
a rare, pre-arranged commodity. 

It was not until that second year, 
after our lovely summer, that I real- 
ized just how lonely I was. It wasn't 
that Marshall was gone a lot. Worse, 
he was home and unavailable to me. 
Slowly, the feelings of anger and re- 
sentment grew. I felt betrayed, for 
this was not the vision of law school 
to which I had agreed. I tried to be 
generous and understanding. There was 
no doubt that law was an excellent pro- 
fession for Marshall. And he certainly 
hated the wretched process as much as I 
did. I knew he was trying hard to jug- 
gle my needs along with the demands of 
school and his part-time job. None of 
this insight lessened the hurt and dis- 
appointment I felt when — once more — I 
found myself doing things alone, or 
foregoing events I really preferred to 
share with Marshall. Increasingly, I 
resented a schedule which seemed to 
bring us together by appointment. 

Added to this emotional cauldron, 
we each had unanticipated negative re- 
actions to my role as the primary bread- 
winner. I liked the feeling of inde- 
pendence that came with my new role. 
But I realized, to my intense dislike, 
that co-existing with this "proper" fem- 
inist response was anger at not being 
the one supported. Even more frustrat- 
ing, the money I worked hard to earn 

was never enough. I wanted to feel 
good about being the main supporter, 
with money to treat us on occasion, and 
money to put aside. Instead, there was 
never enough to pay all our bills, let 
alone to save or to savor. I felt like 
a failure at this important new role. 

Marshall, on the other hand, was 
obsessed that bills were not being paid 
on time. He laid awake at night worry- 
ing about where the money could come 
from. He was going to school full-time 
and working when he wasn't in class. He 
was chronically tired, doing the best 
he could — and it wasn't enough. Other 
friends and relatives had their educa- 
tions behind them and were living com- 
fortably. He was getting a late start 
and wondering if it was worth it. 

Hardest of all during this time was 
our inability to talk about these feel- 
ings together. Neither of us wanted to 
express our hurt and resentment about 
the situation. My feelings, when I 
admitted them to myself, sounded petty 
and selfish. I knew how hard my hus- 
band worked, and how tired and over- 
whelmed he felt. I did not want to 
add to his pressures by complaining 
about feeling neglected. Besides, I 
rationalized, there did not seem to be 
any realistic way to fix the situation. 
When semester breaks came, we were 
relieved to have time to relax, and 
neither of us wanted to spoil those 
rare times with fights we weren't 
certain we could resolve. And so we 
swept our feelings under the rug, a 
rug that was becoming harder for us 
to walk over. 

The summer between the second and 
third year was a strange one. Marshall 
worked at the U.S. Attorney's Office for 
the Justice Department, and due to the 
nature of the Office's investigation, he 
was not at liberty to discuss the cases 
he researched. As a result, our conver- 
sations about his work were short, usu- 
ally consisting of one-word answers like 
"fascinating" or "interesting" but with 
no details. At a time when we very much 
needed to share more of our lives with 
each other, an important part of his new 
life was off-limits to me. 


At last, we entered the third year. 
With the end in sight, we both experi- 
enced relief and confidence that the 
worst was over. Marshall began to in- 
terview for his first job as an attor- 
ney. With one foot still in law school, 
he faced the decision about the type of 
law he wanted to practice and where he 
wished to work. He decided upon civil 
litigation and, after a round of appli- 
cations, interviews, and a couple of 
disappointments, he received and ac- 
cepted an offer from a fine firm. We 
celebrated. There was only one more 
semester to go, and then the grueling 
bar exam. But each of us knew that law 
school would end, and we could get on 
with our lives. 

I decided to change jobs, leaving 
my state government planning position to 
work in a university research center. I 
felt liberated from state bureaucracy 
and from the domination of law school. 
The tension began to ease between us and 
our humor returned. Graduation came, 
and I threw a family dinner and a party 
for friends in celebration. We lived 
through the bar exam and went immedi- 
ately on a fine vacation, visiting old 
friends in Massachusetts and then on to 
Montreal. In many ways, this trip was 
a symbol of resuming our lives where we 
left off since this was essentially the 
same vacation we had taken one year 
prior to the start of law school. It 
was a lovely, well-earned vacation, 
and we enjoyed it tremendously. 

When we returned, Marshall started 
his full-time work at the firm, and 
waited to hear whether or not he had 
passed the bar exam. Passing was the 
single remaining rite of passage to be- 
ing a full-fledged practicing attorney. 
We waited two months to learn the re- 
sults. This was a painful period of 
time, since law school was not really 
finished until the exam was passed, 
regardless of graduation. 

On October A, 1980, our fifth wed- 
ding anniversary, the good news arrived: 
Marshall had passed the bar exam. It 
was truly over, and we celehrated for 
two weeks. 

The two years following law school, 
we settled down to the hard work of 
straightening out our relationship. 
There were long nights and weekend days 
of exploring, and remembering, and 
bringing out those past hurts and 
angers. It was not an easy time. In 
large part, our ruptured relationship 
was the result of the manner in which 
we coped, and did not cope, with law 
school. Our reactions to the law 
school experience cannot be separated 
from the basic strengths and weaknesses 
of our relationship, or from our coping 
skills as individuals. But law school 
was a significant life step that radi- 
cally impinged upon our relationship. 

My husband's reactions probably 
were not so different from those of 
many other law students. He often was 
overwhelmed and insecure, and almost 
always preoccupied and exhausted. I 
reacted in ways that are typical, no 
doubt, of those who live with law stu- 
dents. I was confused by the intensity 
of the neglect, loneliness, resentment, 
and anger I felt toward the situation 
and my husband. The more obsessed he 
became about his new profession, the 
more distant he seemed from me, and the 
more neglected I felt. We found it hard 
to confront our hurt and anger at the 
times these feelings occurred. As a 
couple, we were not as good at these 
confrontations as we needed to be. The 
rigors of the study schedule left pre- 
cious little time for spontaneously 
addressing painful issues. Our sensi- 
tivity to each other's situation also 
made it difficult to share our feelings 
at the time. 

Without question, law school was a 
time of growth for both Marshall and me, 
much of it painful, and little of it in 
those areas where change was anticipated 
and welcomed. Even today, three years 
after his entry into law school, memo- 
ries and feelings about the experience 
are unsettling for me. In retrospect, 
it was the right professional choice 
for my husband, and he is well suited 
to law. It has been a source of real 
joy to see him grow more and more com- 
fortable with his attorney role. We 
are now closer, more sensitive to each 


other's needs, and much better about 
dealing with emotional issues as they 

Passing any of life's milestones 
can be damaging to a relationship. The 
process of becoming an attorney will 
affect both the law student and his/her 
partner. With sensitivity to each 
other's needs and fears, and a resolve 
to confront emotional tensions as they 
occur, the adjustment to law school or, 
for that matter, any decision which de- 
mands such adjustments, will be easier 
for both people. These are good pre- 
scriptions for maintaining the health of 
any relationship, at any time. But they 
become especially important when signi- 
ficant life events test the strength of 
a couple's commitment to one another. 


by Joanne R. Creager 

The afternoon sun adds to the gold- 
en aura of success that fills her office 
between the Sacramento River and the 
Capitol dome. Here is a bright and very 
energetic woman, an attorney who is ob- 
viously enjoying her job and thriving on 
its challenges. 

It wasn't always this way. Mary- 
Lou Smith was teacher at one time, then 
held various administrative positions 
with state government. She became a 
lawyer later in life, the Hard Way . . . 
night law school, while working full- 
time and raising her family. By the 
time she was admitted to the Bar in 
1969, she had worked out a lot of things 
in her life, and revitalized her out- 
look. Her life radiates a positive 
approach, which she has developed and 
earned over the years. 

She is such an upbeat person, she 
acts as the mainstay of a women attor- 
neys and law students support network. 
(Her enlightened husband frequently 
cooks gourmet meals for the group.) She 
is also a founding member and leader of 
California Women Lawyers. 

The insightfulness that makes her 
so meaningful to others is evidenced in 
talking to her . . . reflecting back 
over law school and career, she points 
out that "things haven't really changed 
that much" for women going into the 
legal profession. A lot of strength is 
needed, just to get through law school, 
where the atmosphere is one of competi- 
tion, rather than support and coopera- 
tion. She recalls that few men had the 
capacity to maintain personal relation- 
ships with women law students throughout 
the ordeal. Breakups were prevalent. 
Rather than overt, heavy-handed sexism, 
she experienced a pervasive oversimpli- 
fication of women's issues . . . which 
causes one to reflect what fitting one- 
self to the Procrustean bed of "The 
System" of law-as-practiced in the U.S. 
does to a woman's deep, inner identity. 

This carries over from law school into 
a general attitude among men, who basi- 
cally "can't handle" professional women, 
an attitude Mary-Lou appears to rise 
above by pure energy. 

In her current position as director 
of regulatory services for Associated 
General Contractors, she deals with the 
highly complex subject matter of how to 
facilitate a favorable business climate 
within her industry by coping with a 
maze of government regulations and agen- 
cies. She works with such issues as 
environment and energy, construction 
industry safety, litigation, force ac- 
counts, and the progress of women in 

Instrumental in the creation of 
California's innovative and money-saving 
Construction Contract Arbitration pro- 
gram, she worked out much of the legal 
detail of the out-of-court dispute reso- 
lution that now saves companies thous- 
ands of dollars and years of time, when 
compared with going to court. In addi- 
tion to her legal training, she brought 
a skill to this task: the fine art of 
working with government. Here is where 
she believes women have a natural advan- 
tage, where a cooperative and reasonable 
approach pays off over the years in the 
good karma of helpful contacts, knowing 
who to talk to for the right information 
necessary to solve problems without 

She characterizes this skill, in 
general, as "the art of working within 
what is still an almost all-male sys- 
tem." Her informal study of the com- 
plexities of working relationships has 
shown her that men, who are easily in- 
timidated by more verbally apt women, 
have their own subtle ways of getting 
even, by such things as effectively bar- 
ring women from the inner circle of 
their team, in various unspoken ways. 
(Does this sound like True Life Adven- 
tures from Games Mother Never Taught 
You ?) 

Mary-Lou radiates a refreshingly 
wide range of interests, something 
not typical of the legal profession 


generally . . . from the tasteful 
prints, plants, yellow-gold walls, and 
peacock feathers of her office, to her 
personal commitment to social justice 
issues and her understanding of the 
"male world" of construction, to her 
compassionate and supportive attitude 
towards struggling women professionals, 
her aliveness exemplifies the energy 
and capability of working women. 

Asked for sensible advice for wom- 
en aspiring to become attorneys, she 
suggests getting practical experience, 
first-hand, on what law practice is 
really like. Unlike the glorified 
images you see on TV, she says, there 

are days when "you never leave your 
desk." She also advises against going 
into law with the goal of "helping 
people," something which idealists are 
inclined to do. There are other pro- 
fessions which help people much more. 

Most of all, she reflects, in the 
sometimes abrasive and hostile world of 
law it is essential to believe in your- 
self and to deliberately become the very 
best you can be, in every way. You 
can't have too much savvy, an ambient 
term she uses to describe the combina- 
tion of sensitivity and analytical ap- 
proach and determination that helped her 
become what she is today. 





by Julie A. Norman 

We are still in the middle of the 
law school experience; I am that is, as 
are women whose views appear here. We 
are not sure where law will lead us, but 
we do know that the experience has af- 
fected, and is affecting, our lives. By 
the time I first thought about writing 
this article, I had come to realize that 
I was changing but I wasn't sure whether 
these changes were related primarily to 
law school, or to my "mid-life crisis," 
or to changing careers. These talks 
with women who are my friends and col- 
leagues at law school reinforced for me 
the significance of the experience of 
law school in my life as an agent of 
change. All of the women to whom I 
talked have found getting through law 
school to be a profound experience. 


Barb, at 24, is the youngest of the 
women. She is the single parent of a 
six-year-old daughter. Never married, 
Barb has had to work hard to make it by 
herself. She is an evening student with 
a year to complete. Before entering law 
school, she held a number of jobs and 
still worked as a waitress during her 
first year of law school. For the past 
one and a half years she has been a 
part-time law clerk in a Loop firm. 
She wants to be a civil trial lawyer. 

Barb began law school with an in- 
terest in criminal law but through expo- 
sure to the realities of criminal law 
the romantic idea of defending "street 
people" lost its attraction. 

During her second year, Barb broke 
off with her lover of three years be- 
cause she found him lacking in motiva- 
tion and ambition. Prior to law school, 
she had enjoyed his easy-going style but 
now has no interest in unmotivated peo- 
ple. Barb has also found that she has 

no time or inclination for "mum social- 
izing" activities she once enjoyed. 

Earning money has Increasingly be- 
come important. She cares deeply about 
social issues, but knows that she cannot 
earn enough to support herself and her 
daughter by doing only poverty or family 
law: circumstances have forced her to 
redirect her thinking. 

Now in her last year of law school, 
Barb respects the law less, because it 
is so anti-peoplej and believes that 
lawyers have very few morals, viewing 
the legal profession as a game to be 
won. Although Barb intends to use the 
law to serve people, she feels that the 
structure of the law has been used to 
oppress poor people and benefit wealthy 
corporations. She is critical of prison 
terms and the whole criminal justice 
system, and believes that alternatives 
such as parole and work release should 
be actively pursued. 

As a woman lawyer, Barb believes 
she will have to prove herself and work 
twice as hard as men. She did not real- 
ize the degree of discrimination against 
women until entering law school and 
working in the law firm as a clerk. 
This firm has stated that they will hire 
no women attorneys because one woman 
that they hired chose to terminate em- 
ployment rather than return at the end 
of her maternity leave. This proves, 
they say, that hiring women is a bad 
risk. Barb has also become aware of a 
high degree of sexual harassment within 
this same firm. 

Initially the hostile and aggres- 
sive nature of law school caused Barb to 
lose self-confidence, but standing up to 
the rigid structure and sticking with it 
have resulted in a renewed sense of con- 
fidence. As a result of law school, she 
feels more sure of herself in personal 
relationships and is unwilling to settle 
for less than she wants. The confidence 
and assertiveness developed in school 
has transferred to her private life. 
For Barb, law school represents putting 
effort into herself, a very positive 
step for her. 



Jan is 38 years old, married, and 
has a daughter age 10. Before entering 
law school, Jan was a Chicago school 
teacher who later went into school ad- 
ministration to advance her concerns 
about education. She is an evening stu- 
dent in her last year of school and is 
employed full-time as director of incen- 
tive programs for the Chicago Public 
Schools. She has been promoted twice in 
the last year. Jan hopes to become an 
attorney for the Board of Education, or 
in a private firm. Always conservative 
in her opinions and concerned about 
earning money, Jan doesn't think, her 
political outlook has changed any be- 
cause of law school. As an example she 
favored capital punishment when she 
entered and still does. 

She feels her marriage has suf- 
fered. Her husband does not understand 
what she is going through, and Jan be- 
lieves that only those who are in law 
school or have attended can understand 
the experience. 

Jan thinks lack of time has changed 
all of her relationships now that she 
has become more selective in her use 
of time. She has not cultivated new 
friendships and has ". . .no social 
life." Once she was more tolerant and 
understanding of people, but is now 
shorter with her co-workers and expects 
more of them. She has little tolerance 
for people who aren't highly motivated 
and finds herself pushing people, just 
as she is pushing herself. 

school. The practice of law will re- 
inforce her new personality. 


Leslie is 30 years old and a di- 
vorced mother of one daughter, age 
eight. Divorced for seven years, Les- 
lie is employed full-time as an execu- 
tive secretary and attends evening 
classes. With one and a half years of 
school to complete, she has already 
been promoted and reassigned to the 
legal department of her firm since 
starting school. She has also devel- 
oped an interest in computer systems 
independent of her studies. She be- 
lieves that she receives more respect 
at work because she is a law student 
and finds the men most supportive, 
noting that her female co-workers are 
either jealous or maternal towards her. 
However, some of the women like her and 
feel that they are equals. 

She is unsure whether law school or 
therapy enabled her to become more inde- 
pendent in the last years, a "must" for 
an attorney. Previously, Leslie looked 
to men for the "answers." 

Developing friendships also seems 
easier but not at law school where the 
atmosphere is too competitive. 

Leslie thinks her values are un- 
changed by law school and feels less 
impotent about changing society. She 
hopes to do corporate law, but wants to 
devote some time to doing pro bono work, 
especially for women and blacks. 

Law school's greatest impact on Jan 
is that decision making takes longer 
now. She is more deliberate and exact- 
ing in her thought processes. 

She believes law school has taught 
her to think in a more rigorous fashion. 


Jan has belonged to no outside stu- 
dent organizations at law school. She 
went to one black student association 
meeting and could not discern why the 
organization exists. She never attended 
any of the Women's Law Caucus meetings. 

Jan feels that' her new attitude 
will not change when she finishes law 

Hilary is 25. She is single, and 
lives with a roommate in a far north 
suburb. She began law school four years 
ago as a full-time student, but was so 
drained and disillusioned that she 
dropped out for a year. She began at- 
tending again as a part-time student, 
and presently has about one and half 
years to complete her studies. She 


works as an assistant manager at a high 
school bookstore. When she entered law 
school she had no career goal, and is 
still unclear about whether she wants to 
do criminal law or property law. She 
might be interested in some form of cor- 
porate law, since she has completed half 
of the coursework on a graduate degree 
in business administration. 

Hilary believes that her way of 
thinking about life has changed. She 
does not find the world so simple, and 
she now questions her values. Her per- 
sonal relationships have not changed 
only because she warned her friends that 
her time is restricted. In addition to 
old friends she has formed new friend- 
ships at law school. She notes that 
night students seem to have their "own 
lives," while day students have more 
time for socializing since most do not 
have jobs or families. 

Like Leslie, Hilary works at form- 
ing friendships, and values them more, 
because both are single and the friend- 
ships are some sort of "replacement"^ in 
Leslie's words, for a family. 

In her first year of law school, 
Hilary was involved in the Women's Law 
Caucus, and felt it was very supportive 
and helpful. A Big Sister program also 
helped first year students adjust, and 
the Caucus gave them somewhere to come 
and commiserate about their problems. 
The Caucus also enabled Hilary to meet 
other women and to compare notes about 
professors (their personalities, exams, 
and sexism). She finds that the Caucus 
is disorganized now and doesn't seem to 
do much, which she believes is a shame 
because of the need it can fill. 


Ruth, at 43, is the oldest of the 
women. She was divorced in 1964 and has 
two children of college age. Her young- 
est child left home last fall at the be- 
ginning of Ruth's second year in law 
school. Ruth is an evening student who 
works nearly full-time as a law clerk in 
a general practice Loop law firm. Be- 
fore law school, Ruth worked for a 

family welfare agency. She has been 
active in the Women's Movement since 
1967 but is disillusioned with the 
Women's Caucus on campus because she 
feels it is ineffective. As an example, 
she related that when she found a sexist 
bumper sticker (about women lawyers) in 
the school bookstore and took it to the 
Caucus, the dean, as well as the manager 
of the bookstore, nothing was done. The 
Caucus seemed unwilling to deal with it. 
In fact, most regarded it as a joke. 

Ruth is more particular about how 
she spends her time now. She feels this 
pressure has made her more honest, 
assertive and able to say "no" if she 
doesn't want to do something. She feels 
that she was more passive before law 

Her work takes Ruth to the Daley 
Center, where she describes feeling like 
she is in a "men's locker room." There 
are still very few women practicing law 
compared to the numbers of men. She 
sometimes feels out of place, and that 
the men are more aggressive in getting 
in line at the various courtrooms and 
in doing their work. She still has to 
think about being assertive in these 

Ruth's feelings about the law are 
mixed. Although her studies have been 
a growth experience, she is fearful of 
the changes. She is considering work 
in family law, but is very open to many 
different areas of the law. 


I am 38 years old, married, with 
one son, age nine. I am an evening stu- 
dent and will complete my studies in one 
year. Before entering law school, I was 
a social worker for 13 years and active 
in the civil rights and trade union 
movements. I continued to work full- 
time for the first year, attending law 
school at night. When I resigned from 
my job as a social worker, I maintained 
that I could always return to my old 
profession if the law didn't work out, 
only subconsciously admitting the career 


After spending 13 years listening 
to people, trying to figure out what was 
motivating them and offering help, the 
study of law was a vast "come down." 
Much of law is boring, confusing and 
seems to go nowhere. There are no real 
"victories" as in social work when a 
client changes. At least, there are no 
victories for me, because I have never 
entered fully into the world of compe- 
tition there. The role-playing in Moot 
Court, or Litigation, is clearly not 
real. The struggle to "get an A" just 
turns me off cold so that I no longer 
tell people my grades. 

It has been scary at the same time. 
Like my friends, I find myself thinking 
about issues differently and if any- 
thing, I am more radical, but rarely 
leap in emotionally as before. I find 
myself thinking about the other side, 
and I guess, figuring out an argument 
against it. 

The isolation of law school after a 
career filled with people has been emo- 
tionally wrenching. I miss the close 
friendships, the people contact with co- 
workers and clients, and particularly 
the active life of a social worker "on 
the streets." The law library just 
doesn't measure up! 

study. Hilary, who has completed half 
of her MBA, pointed out that there is 
simply no comparison. Jan has done 
graduate work in education and cautions 
the same. I can certainly say that no 
graduate social work course I ever took 
resembles the mind-bending that goes on 
in law school. You are forced to con- 
ceptualize in a whole new way and the 
structure is very rigid, and aggressive. 
To succeed women must adapt to the male 
mode of thinking and working. Women in 
law school must want success, value 
achievement above relationships, and 
seek to make a mark on the world or his- 
tory as they define it. Women adapting 
these previously male traits are not 
apologizing for them. Is the choice of 
this male mode a temporary prerequisite 
for women in law, or is this a transi- 
tional stage leading to an embodiment 
of the female mode into law school 
structure and into law itself? Until 
then, the frustration of competing in 
this male arena is best summed up by 
Ruth, who upon receiving her first "D" 
was completely shattered. While I tried 
to comfort her, she commented (about the 
law school struggle) "Julie, this is 
just no way to live!" It's not , but 
it doesn't last forever. We just need 
to outlast it! 

When I entered law school, I 
thought about becoming a prosecutor, 
especially in the area of juvenile law 
but also I thought about work in crim- 
inal law. I discovered, however, a 
"natural" feel for Tort law and a real 
excitement about product liability, 
medical malpractice, and all sorts of 
injuries people suffer that demand a 
remedy. But, like Hilary and Ruth, I 
feel essentially open and interested 
in several different areas. 

Leslie told me to encourage anyone 
reading this who is thinking of going to 
law school, to do so. Law school has 
been for her an important experience in 
her struggle to become assertive and ma- 
ture in a male-dominated world. 

However, I must warn that law 
school is not the same as graduate 



We never knew what she was like before. 

I never really saw, 

remember only how she tried to ram 

a filched scissors into me 

when a nurse wasn't around; 

how she pushed the senile lady around 

like a walker. 

That was when they put the strait jacket 
on her and she ran up and down the halls 

...I will fear no evil, no evil, no evil... 

A mad Venus de Milo with hair like blown 
snow down her back, bare feet slapping, cold 
floors, then Houdini-like, she worked her 
way out of the carelessly strapped canvas, 
stood naked in her madness 
waving metrazol-tracked arms , 
shit on the lysoled floor 
while we all watched enrapt 
and cheered her on. 

Even when she stood poised 
on the window ledge, 
a bird with wings flapping, 
we cheered. 

Then with heads hanging 

like naughty children, 

we shuffled back to our beds . 

There was nothing left 
to see. 

by Sue Saniel Elkind 


by Lynn Thomas Strauss 

Marcia Gevers is a successful at- 
torney with her own law practice. She 
began two and a half years ago with an 
office in her home and today has an of- 
fice in the community with two attor- 
neys, a clerk, one full-time secretary 
and one part-time secretary as needed. 
Hers is a general practice of real 
estate transactions, divorces, estate 
planning, criminal cases, corporate 
affairs for small businesses and taxes. 

Before becoming a lawyer Ms. Gevers 
taught for five years and spent six 
years as administrative assistant to a 
state representative. As in her former 
careers, Ms. Gevers experiences personal 
satisfaction in her work as a lawyer 
because she is able to help people do 
things they could not do for themselves. 

One skill that serves her well in 
legal work is an ability to know where 
to go for the answers. When she began 
her own firm directly upon passing the 
Illinois Bar examination, she called 
upon friends who were attorneys to 
answer practical questions. She also 
believes strongly in "doing" as a way 
of learning. "Law school does not 
teach you the practical details of 
where and how to file legal petitions. 
If I went to file without all the re- 
quired forms, the clerk would tell me 
what was needed and I would go back 
and complete the needed forms. Next 
time I knew what to do," says Ms. 

Her strong desire to achieve legit- 
imacy in the world of work is one factor 
which led Ms. Gevers into a career in 
law. She feels it is important to be 
accepted first as an attorney — not as a 
woman first and only secondarily as an 
attorney. Gevers says she has experi- 
enced little discrimination as a woman. 
"The title itself works wonders," she 
says. A law degree is considered by 
many to be a stepping stone to other 
achievements, but Ms. Gevers plans to 

practice law for a long time and to see 
her firm grow and prosper. With this 
goal she works from 40 to 80 hours a 
week or "until the work is done." 

Establishing her own busines 
rather than working for a downtown law 
firm was initially a practical decision. 
Marcia and her husband have two young 
children, and she felt it necessary to 
work as close to home as possible. "I 
needed to know that I could decide when 
I would work and when I could run home 
to be mommy. I needed flexibility and 
control over my time. My office is five 
blocks from home so I'm available when 
I'm needed — or my secretary is. I told 
secretarial applicants that making cof- 
fee wasn't mandatory, but driving car 
pools to after-school lessons was." 

"There are times," acknowledges Ms. 
Gevers, "when there is not enough sepa- 
ration between work and home." As in 
any kind of self -employment , "I may 
still get emergency phone calls in the 
middle of the night." Gevers' husband 
has always shared significantly in 
housework and child care. Daughter 
Sarah was just over a year old when Ms. 
Gevers began law school while working 
part-time. Before graduation Gevers 
gave birth to her son and took a semes- 
ter off shortly after. She admits 
that life at that time took a lot of 

As difficult as it was at times to 
combine motherhood and law school, Ms. 
Gevers feels that the experience of com- 
bining intellectual pursuits and the day 
to day care of babies provided a good 
balance and helped to keep her feet on 
the ground and maintain a reasonable 
perspective in the face of the rigors 
and often unrealistic expectations of 
law school. Ms. Gevers observed younger 
women just out of college or whose whole 
lives were dedicated to law school and 
earning A's who seemed to put a great 
deal of unnecessary pressure on them- 
selves. Many women seemed to feel that 
they had to be better than men, that 
they had to be constantly proving them- 
selves. Ms. Gevers and women who share 
her life circumstances were able through 


necessity to accept B's and C's in 
courses, to pass up the burden and the 
glory of making the Law Review. These 
sacrifices caused some sadness, accord- 
ing to Gevers, but their lives were more 
balanced and law school was for them a 
step on their career path, not a world 
of its own. 

Despite the many challenges she 
faced while in law school, Ms. Gevers 
chose not to participate in the support 
group for women students that was avail- 
able because she felt it was a mistake 
to separate women as a group and provide 
special considerations. These support 
groups were available only to women and 
minority students and focused on emo- 
tional rather than substantive issues. 
As one of a minority of women attorneys 
in the south suburbs, Ms. Gevers has 
met several times with her female col- 
leagues, but feels there is no reason to 
form a separate professional organiza- 
tion exclusively for women. Ms. Gevers 
is an active member of the South Subur- 
ban Bar Association; and in spite of a 
sometimes cool reception from male mem- 
bers, she tries to encourage other fe- 
male attorneys to participate. Rather 
than put energy into forming a separate 
professional group for women, Gevers is 
working toward full participation of all 
attorneys in the existing local profes- 
sional organization. 

hearing is assured by the system. 

Overall Ms. Gevers is satisfied 
with her career choice but she does ex- 
perience frustration with some of the 
legal limitations that can prevent an 
attorney from helping a client as fully 
as she might wish. Another frustration 
is with the need to be concerned with 
personalities. Personalities of judges 
and competing attorneys must be taken 
into account along with the legal issues 

Ms. Gevers strongly supports other 
women pursuing an interest in the law. 
"Ambition and desire will carry you 
through the hard work and the long 
hours to a place within a very satis- 
fying profession." 

The hardest thing about law school 
according to Gevers was the need to 
learn a whole new language and a whole 
new way of thinking. She feels that the 
best preparation for law school would be 
an undergraduate major in philosophy or 
English. "A lawyer must also have a 
love of learning," says Gevers, "because 
a lawyer is learning all the time, even 
after law school." 

One aspect of the legal system that 
Ms. Gevers grew to respect was the order 
and proscribed rules governing the legal 
process. It is totally unnecessary, ac- 
cording to Gevers, for female attorneys 
or anyone to be overly aggressive in the 
ways in which they present their cases. 
The law provides a turn for each attor- 
ney and each witness to be heard: a 




Dear Editor, 

I see things on the news that get me concerned. I see 
kids that are disabled, and their parents don't want 
them to live. Even doctors sometimes say that it 
would be better if they were dead. They starve the 
baby to death or withhold treatment. In one case, the 
doctor wanted to withhold treatment, and the parents 
took the baby to another hospital. Now, 
anencephalics, that's different -- if the baby would be 
in pain or just a vegetable, then it couldn't have a real 
life. But spina bifida, or Down's syndrome, I think 
those people have a right to their life. I'm also 
concerned about the cuts in funding for services for 
disabled people. Sometimes I think that I can't 
change anything and that the world's going to pieces. 

Kim Keegan 

Dear Editor, 

The review of Michelle Morris' If I Should Die Before I 
Wake by Terri Schwartz in your Fall 1982 issue was 
wonderful. From your profound review, I feel that I 
have the essence of the book, and a clear focus on 
the human pain and self destruction resulting from 
incest. And I admire the way you allow your own 
feelings, and thoughts, to come through clearly, and 
as your own. 

This is the most profound, and feelingful, and useful 
book review I have read in ages, perhaps ever. 

my heartiest congratulations, 

Dave Crispin 


by Carol Amen 

Whenever I see grape leaf ivy, I 
think of Mom and the strange way we 
lost her. 

She was driving home from the 
blood bank when the truck rammed her 
little car. To me it seemed cruelly 
ironic she'd just donated blood. Mom's 
type was O-negative, and she was a real 
crusader on the subject. Just a few 
weeks before the accident, she'd taken 
me to the Center. 

"Such a nice healthy girl," the 
technician said, checking my hemoglobin 
prior to my first donation. 

Mom beamed. "I've wanted to get 
Laurie in here ever since her sixteenth 
birthday, but she's so busy. She's al- 
most seventeen now." 

The doctor described the injury as 
a depressed skull fracture. He and the 
neurosurgeon told us Mom's brain was 
traumatized beyond healing, beyond re- 
pair. We just sat there, not believ- 
ing them, hoping and praying they were 

Probably a lot of people were of- 
fended at what we eventually did. I 
guess if you hadn't known Mom, it would 
be hard to understand. 

For one thing, we were in shock. 
Randy had flown in from his job back 
east. He and Dad and I alternated be- 
tween pacing and sitting and trying to 
make sense out of it. Until then, ac- 

cidents had always been something that 
happened to other people. 

It wasn't even logical. There Mora 
lay, her face as serene as ever, not 
another part of her injured. Just her 

"Look, Laurie, Dad," Randy said, 
"Next to us, what's always been the big 
thing in Mom's life?" 

Neither Dad nor I answered. We 
knew what he was getting at. One of the 
doctors had given us a leaflet about the 
Perpetual Donor Program. By this time 
they'd done dozens of tests. Mom's 
heart was in fine shape, they said. 
Her body could survive a long time. 

"It might ease some of the hurt," 
the first doctor said, his hand on Dad's 
shoulder, "to know that Claudia's death 
had meaning." 

When Dad looked puzzled at the word 
"death," the doctor reminded him that 
since passage of the Death Definition 
Bill, Mom already met the legal require- 
ments for death. Her encephalogram reg- 
istered no appreciable brain activity. 
Once the Euthanasia Board met, there 'd 
be another hearing, more papers to sign, 
and, finally, what was left of Mom's 
life would be terminated painlessly. 

Or, Dad could authorize Mom going 
into the Donor Program. That was 
Randy's wish. As a social worker, he 


said he saw lots of cases where people 
needed transfusions. What better me- 
morial to Mora's life than for her blood 
to go on helping others? 

He was really insistent, and Dad 
seemed impressed with his reasoning. 

"What do you think, Laurie? what 
would your mother want?" 

I looked at her, so still, so beau- 
tiful. The white bandages seemed almost 
like a crown. "Don't make me decide, 
Daddy. Please." 

Randy spoke again. "For years I've 
heard people say 'vegetable' when they 
mean the brain's gone. But Mom's not a 
vegetable. She's more like a flower." 

We argued and. discussed and remi- 
nisced. Mom's passions included us, a 
few friends, the house and yard (she 
loved to grow fuschias, ferns and cycla- 
men), and giving blood. Dad used to 
laugh and blame some vampire movie she 
must have seen as a kid. I'd grown up 
taking it for granted Mom was super- 
enthusiastic on the subject. She got 
her eleven gallon pin when I was nine. 

She told me that giving blood made 
her feel special, needed. One of her 
satisfactions concerned a farmer in the 
Santa Clara Valley near where we live. 
He'd been spraying his crops with in- 
secticides, and somehow his platelets, 
a crucial element in his blood, had been 
destroyed. Mom and a bunch of other 0- 
negative donors kept him alive long 
enough to see his son graduate from 
high school. His family remembered 
Mom with a bouquet of yellow roses 
every Christmas. 

"As we waited and agonized those 
long days in the hospital, we talked a 
lot about Mora. Once, when she went to 
the Center after a special call, the 
nurse told her her blood pressure was 
too low; and they would have to refuse 
her. It was the first and only time Mom 
had ever been turned down, and it made 
her so mad she sat there a few minutes 
and raised her pressure . She said it 
wasn't hard to do, and that the nurse 
had taken it twice when it was too low, 
and then twice afterward, to make sure 
it wasn't a mistake. It would have been 
a shame not to be able to give that day, 
she thought. There was a hemophiliac 
who really needed her blood. 

In the end I guess all of us — 
Randy, Dad and I — thought the Perpetual 
Donor Program would be a way of keeping 
part of Mom alive, even though the rest 
of her was gone. I wouldn't want Dad to 
carry the entire responsibility for the 
way it turned out. 

We had a Memorial Service in the 
hospital chapel; and in a few weeks, 
when the paper work was completed, Dad 
was declared a widower. 

Randy flew back to his job, Dad 
went off every morning to work and came 
home again at night looking like a zom- 
bie, and in between high school and my 
job at the discount store, I tried to 
keep house. 

Every time I struggled with a menu 
that had been Mom's specialty, every 
time I looked into the yard where her 
flowers seemed to cry out with neglect, 
every time I rushed off to school with- 
out her encouraging me to have a good 
day, I missed her. 

Once in a while the Center would 
call and ask Mom to come down. Maybe 
they were doing an exchange transfusion 
on a baby, or a lengthy surgery; and 
they needed her blood type. 

"Some people have charities they 
work for, Laurie," she used to say. 
"Some people give lots of money or time 
for a cause they believe in. I give my 
blood. It's as simple as that." 

Not that Mom and I had one those 
icky, story-book relationships you hear 
about in mothers and daughters some- 
times. We each had too strong a sense 
of privacy for that. But I knew I could 
count on her. I hope she'd known that 
about me too. 

The first time I went to see her 
after she was legally dead, I didn't 
know what to expect. They had moved 


her into the donor wing. There were 
four "persons" in her ward. Two were 
waiting crossmatch for total organ re- 
moval. Their parts would go to a number 
of suitable recipients. The other room- 
mate was another perpetual blood donor. 

A young intern talked to me before 
I went into her room. "We're not sure 
this visiting is a good idea," he said. 

"Not good for you, or not good for 
me?" I asked, taking an instant dislike 
to him. 

"The Donor Program is just in its 
infancy. We don't know that much about 
the dynamics." He pulled a thick sheaf 
of papers from a file. "Your family can 
help with our research though. It's a 
little like being pioneers." 

He gave me an eight-page written 
test, full of questions about death, 
life, my feelings. Finally I was able 
to go into her room. It wasn't nearly 
as scary as I thought it would be. Mom 
had always been a fairly quiet person, 
so it didn't seem that odd for her not 
to be talking. The intern instructed me 
to think of her as a body only, a body 
that was being kept alive for science. 

One of the older nurses asked about 
my religious beliefs. She said she was 
praying that Mom's spirit would be at 

"They give her tube feedings," I 
told Dad afterwards. "And move her so 
she doesn't get bed sores. The nurses 
are good to her. If you went, you'd 
see that." 

But once a month was as often as 
Dad could cope with it. 

I went every week on ray afternoon 
off from work. The doctor disapproved, 
and showed me the flat lines from Mom's 
encephalogram, meaning her brain was 

Even so, I refused to think of her 
as just a body with a heart pumping 
blood. I sat beside her and reminisced 
aloud about stuff — family stories, what 

I was doing in school. I pretended she 
could hear everything I said, so I tried 
to be cheerful. The problem is , I told 
myself, she just can't move or talk. 

Because she had loved plants and 
flowers, I decided to bring her fuschias 
or ferns, since those were her favor- 
ites, but I was afraid the atmosphere 
wouldn't be right for them in her room. 
After a lot of thought I settled on 
Cissus rhombif olia , grapeleaf ivy, be- 
cause it will stand almost any kind of 
neglect. I dug up a plant from the 
patio and when I got it to the donor 
wing, a nurse wheeled in an IV stand 
for it to hang from. The waxy leaves 
softened the starkness of Mom's room. 

The whole thing might sound morbid, 
but it wasn't — really . I liked being 
with Mom. "We miss you," I'd say. Or, 
I'd tell her about my job. I'd been 
promoted from stock clerk to cashier and 
felt I was making a little progress. 

The nurses clucking over me some- 
what compensated for the obnoxious 
intern. "You're not adjusting to your 
mother's death," he said. "You should 
be further along in your grief therapy 
by now." He thought my visits were 
prolonging the inevitable. He claimed 
I should "let her go," and get on with 
my life. Sometimes I reminded him that 
we were pioneers. He didn't know any 
more about the new field of Perpetual 
Donors than anyone else did. 

The hardest part was watching Mom's 
hands change from strong and competent- 
looking to pale and limp. Still, it 
comforted me to sit and stroke her 

In May I went to see her on my 
seventeenth birthday. It was hard to 
talk normally. Just a few weeks later 
I graduated from high school. Though 
I didn't win any awards or scholarships, 
Dad said he was proud of me, and I knew 
Mom would be too if she could have known 
what was happening. 

That summer I worked full-time at 
the discount store and then entered 
junior college in the fall. 


Things went along pretty much the 
same, and then in the second quarter of 
my freshman year, I took Sociology. 
Signe Harper was a great teacher. Our 
sessions covered everything — ethics, 
abortion, euthanasia, even the fast- 
developing medical technology. Ms. 
Harper presented challenging lectures, 
but she respected our opinions too, and 
never put anyone down for arguing with 
her. Though I had a special interest 
in the subjects we studied, I had no 
intention of revealing Mom's situation 
to the other students. 

I'd told Signe Mom's body was still 
alive. I was happy they'd found each 
other, and even dared hope we might 
eventually become a family. But after 
Signe left that night, I knew I had to 
speak up. "She knows about Mom, Dad. 
Everything. " 

"Why, Laurie, 
have to tell her? 
ghouls . " 

why? Why did you 
She must think we're 

'But she doesn't, Dad. She doesn't 


One day after class I sounded Ms. 
Harper out, then asked if we could have 
lunch. Within a week I'd told her the 
whole story. She asked questions, but 
didn't seem shocked. Until that moment, 
I hadn't realized how much I needed 
someone I could talk to. 

Dad shook his head. "We did the 
wrong thing, baby. Not you or Randy. 
Me. It was my responsibility and I made 
a terrible mistake. I never should have 
allowed her into the Donor Program. 
Euthanasia might have been an answer at 
the time. But it wouldn't be right now. 
Now it would seem like murder." 

After that I often stayed after 
class, and Ms. Harper and I discussed 
music, books, what I planned to do after 
college. Once she had me over to her 
apartment where I saw a picture of her 
husband who'd died. It was obvious she 
still cared for him. She was only 
thirty-nine, but said she didn't mind 
being single. 

For me it was like finding an older 
sister, or maybe another mother, though 
I didn't feel guilty of betraying Mom. 
I still went to see her every week and 
even told her about Signe. 

One night I asked Dad if I could 
invite someone for dinner. He grunted. 
"It's your kitchen. Invite anyone you 

From the start I could see Signe 
and Dad were drawn to one another. At 
first I don't think Dad even thought of 
her as a woman, but simply someone easy 
to talk to. It got to be a habit — her 
coming over for dinner about once a 
week. Little by little, Dad seemed to 
be coming out of his state of with- 

One night he and Signe talked about 
the ones they'd lost. Dad didn't know 

I ran to Dad and wrapped my arms 
around him. 

"They made it sound so noble." His 
voice broke. "And it's not. It's not 
at all. It's nothing like they prom- 
ised." We stood there a long time, both 
of us crying. I guess it was the most 
helpless I've ever felt in my life. 

As time passed, I watched the 
change in Dad. Little by little, he 
began taking an interest in things. 
Once he even suggested a menu I should 
fix when Signe was coming over. 

One night when the two of us were 
doing the dishes, he hesitated, then 
cleared his throat. "I've asked Signe 
to marry me, Laurie, and she is con- 
sidering it. There's just one thing. 
She insists on seeing your mother." 
Dad stabbed the dish towel into a glass. 
"I'm against it. I can't believe any 
good will come of it. I dread it almost 
more than I can tell you." 

I rinsed another glass and put it 
in the rack. "I know, Dad." What else 
could I say? To me Mom was still alive. 
But I knew Dad didn't feel the same. 


"I just can't bear to see her, 
Laurie. I'd rather remember the way she 
used to be." Tears shimmered in his 
eyes. "I still love her, baby. And 
yet, I love Signe too. Will you go with 
us to the hospital? I think it would 
help. " 

Of course I said I would. 

That Saturday afternoon in the car, 
It was pretty quiet. By the time we got 
to the long corridor of the donor wing, 
no one was talking at all. 

In Mom's ward, I glanced first at 
her and then at Signe. I tried to see 
Mom from a stranger's eyes. Her should- 
er length hair had been cut short, and 
waved softly. Even though she wore no 
makeup, I was afraid her face looked a 
little artificial, kind of like a manne- 
quin or a statue. 

breaks for you and Laurie. I love you 
both. But I can't marry you. Not as 
long as your wife's alive." 

Dad looked desperate, his hands 
clenched into fists. His face was 
awful. He looked first at Mom, then 
at Signe. I was sure he was going 
crazy. Then all the fight seemed to 
go out of him. He spoke woodenly. 
"Now I've lost you both." He turned, 
like a man in a trance, and left the 

Signe waited while I hurried to 
say goodbye to Mom. "We're going now. 
But it's all right, Mom. I'll be back 
again next week for our usual visit." 
I took her hand, and it was strange, but 
I swear it was kind of moist, and it 
seemed warmer than when I'd held it be- 
fore. I brushed her forehead with a 
quick kiss, and we left. 

I went quickly to the bed and took 
her hand. It felt dry, as usual, and 
of course there was no muscle tone at 
all. "Hello, Mom," I whispered. "I 
miss you. How's the ivy doing?" I 
reached up and poked a finger into the 
soil around the plant over her head. 
It was properly moist, but not soggy. 
I stood near the head of the bed a 
while, holding her hand and talking 

Then I turned back to Dad and 
Signe. His face was completely ashen 
and hers had tears streaming down it. 

"No, Rob," she said, shivering, 
and shaking her head back and forth. 
"No. This is wrong. I can't marry 
you. " 

Dad looked as if he would 

"I'm not a religious person, Rob, 
but I believe in some thing. I believe 
part of us lives on. The doctor says 
this is only your wife's body, that 
her brain is gone. But what about her 
soul? Did it die in the accident? Or 
is it here, in this room?" She groped 
in her purse for tissues. "My heart 

On the way home, Dad and I tried to 
talk to Signe. I have never seen anyone 
so emotional, yet so rigidly calm and 
determined. When we dropped her off at 
her apartment, it wasn't clear to me if 
it was all over between her and Dad, or 
only that she wouldn't marry him. 

We had just been in the house a few 
minutes when the phone rang. It was the 
intern from the hospital, and he told me 
the news even before he asked to speak 
to Dad. "Donor Claudia Rigsby expired 
from the physical aspect of her life at 
3:30 p.m." He was Mr. Businesslike, 
right to the end. Had we noticed any- 
thing unusual? Though there would be a 
routine autopsy, and a written report, 
it seemed obvious she'd died of natural 

He told me it was our right to view 
the body, although he didn't advise it. 
Then he asked to talk to Dad. I watched 
my father age right before my eyes. But 
there was nothing I could do. 

I wanted to see Mom one more time, 
so I drove to the hospital right away. 
Hardly an hour and a half had passed 
since we'd been there, and though she 
was no more quiet than before, and her 
cheeks seemed just as pink and healthy- 


looking, I knew the instant I walked 
into her room it was different. 
Nothing remained of the mother I had 
loved for almost eighteen years. 

I couldn't bring myself to touch 
the body. I just slumped on the floor 
by the bed and let it flood over me — 
what it felt like, losing her. 

I remembered a time when I was five 
and I'd lost some item I was supposed to 
take to first grade. I was so scared I 
decided I had to run away. Mom must 
have gotten a clue from the fact I left 
in the wrong direction for school, so 
she followed me, turned me around, and 
walked with me all the way, holding my 
hand and telling me it would be okay. 
She went in with me to see the teacher, 
and it was okay. There were lots of 
times like that oyer the years. 

I thought about a terrible argument 
we had when I was in junior high, and 
she found out I hadn't told the truth 
about trying marijuana. She might be 
disappointed in me or disagree with cer- 
tain actions, but the thing that drove 
her to livid, ranting fury was dishon- 
esty. I never lied to her again. 

After a long time, I pushed myself 
up from the side of the bed, and got 
ready to leave. For some reason I 
glanced at the ivy. I guess I thought 
I should take it home. Maybe it could 
serve as a memento of Mom. But I was 
crying so hard I couldn't see clearly. 
The plant looked peculiar, not the 
right color and dry. I wiped my eyes 
and put on my glasses. When I leaned 
closer, I saw that the ivy was uniform- 
ly brown and crisp, as if the foliage 
had been on the fringes of a very bad 
forest fire. 

It was finally over. Mom was 
gone — as dead as the papery leaves I 
held. Carefully I moved from the room 
with the ivy cradled in my arms. I 
thought of a shady spot in the back 
yard, a corner Mom had loved. Some 
fuschias and ferns still flourished 
there. I would give the little plant 
a decent burial. 



by Margaret S. Hughes 
and June S. Dona 

Our maternal grandparents S. Hall 
Young and Fannie L. Kellogg went to 
Alaska separately in 1878 as Presby- 
terian missionaries to the Indians. 
Grandfather went to Ft. Wrangell and 
grandmother to Sitke as the first teach- 
er at the Sheldon Jackson School for 
Indians. They met in Sitka and were 
married there in December 1878. Our 
mother, Abby Lindsley Young, was born 
September 19, 1879, the first white 
child born in Wrangell. As such, she 
was a great wonder to the Indians. The 
chief, Shakes, gave her the name of his 
mother, Ahnooktch, a great honor as the 
Indians of Southeast Alaska had a ma- 
triarchal society. Roughly translated 
the name meant "wonder of the town." 
Whenever Shakes visited our grand- 
parents' house his first question 
would be "Goosoo Uhklah" ("Where is 
my mother?"). A second daughter, 
Margaret Alaska, was always called 

The two sisters, raised among the 
Indians their parents served, were bi- 

lingual from the time they learned to 
talk. The Thlingit Indian language was 
difficult for an adult to learn as it 
involved gutterals that were formed by 
muscles in the throat. Therefore, our 
mother learning as a child spoke the 
language better than grandfather and 
often translated, at an early age, his 
sermons at the mission services. She 
would be seated on a stump if the ser- 
vice was out of doors or on a chair 
when indoors. 

Grandfather had some rather unusual 
ideas for his time about raising his 
daughters. Because most of their child- 
hood was spent on or near the water of 
the Alaskan Inland Waterway he felt they 
must learn to swim and be able to care 
for themselves in the wilderness. They 
were expected to walk or climb long dis- 
tances and not lag behind their elders. 
Grandmother had her own ideas. The 
children should be part of the mission, 
assisting with church duties, attending 
all services, and assisting in the care 
of the sick. 

There was no physician in Wrangell, 
and ministering to the sick fell to the 
missionaries. Grandfather felt his in- 
adequacies in this area so strongly that 
he urged that the Board of Home Missions 


require basic medical training for all 
missionaries sent to the field. Our 
mother had a natural immunity to disease 
which made her a good aide in the nurs- 
ing care required of a woman missionary. 
In later life she recalled the constant 
care she helped give when diphtheria 
swept through the Indian community. 

The two small girls growing up in 
the community were constantly urged to 
set an example. They were taught that 
they must not believe the Indian super- 
stitions or witchcraft. However, so- 
cialization into the white racial ethic 
was in some ways a substitution of one 
set of superstitions for another. Later 
they found they believed superstitions 
they learned from whites. 

The household of the missionary 
family required many skills. Grand- 
father was preacher, explorer, writer, 
historian, census taker and public of- 
ficial. Grandmother was teacher, mu- 
sician, hostess to all travelers who 
stopped in the community, nurse, and 
pleader of causes. Mother became trans- 
lator, nurse's aide, cook and house- 
keeper. Aunt Lassie was assistant 
musician, sparkling mover, cook and 

housekeeper. The two girls were early 
trained to take major responsibility 
for daily chores. One week Abby cooked 
and Lassie cleaned, the next week Lassie 
would cook and Abby clean. Grandfather 
said he could always tell which daughter 
had which duty as Abby was a good cook 
but disliked housekeeping. Lassie loved 
housekeeping but was an indifferent 
cook, so one week meals were excellent 
and the house sparkled, the next week 
nothing tasted good and housekeeping 
was haphazard. 

Certainly at times it must have 
been a demanding childhood for both 
girls, but the excitements of the peo- 
ple, the place and the time more than 
made up for the demands made on them. 
Both retained the ability to make the 
best of things, to stand on their own 
two feet and sustain a wide interest in 
the world around them. Their ability 
to meet people, speak out with clarity 
and passion, to handle emergencies, 
along with their musical skill, learned 
initially from grandmother, remained 
satisfying parts of their lives. Re- 
membering, we feel sorry for children 
whose lives are restricted to what is 
safe and bound by accepted custom. 



Tlmgit Indian. Circa 1870 




Among the hundreds of items to hit 
our mailbox there are some surprises: 
would The Creative Woman be interested 
in "socially sensitive investment?" The 
Calvert Social Investment Fund offers to 
handle your financial investments in a 
way that will let you live with your 
conscience. They will not buy stocks 
that are associated with environmental 
damage, nuclear energy, weapons nor will 
they invest in South African companies. 
"Don't nice guys finish last?" "On the 
contrary," replies Calvert, citing their 
performance. For further information 
about investment companies that present 
Capitalism with a Human Face, Michael 
Brody's "Pure-Play Investments" in 
Barron's , January 24, 1983. It is not 
likely that this quarterly will begin to 
run financial advice, but our readers 
should know that the market includes 
those who share our values: preserva- 
tion of the environment, protection of 
life, resistance to war, alternatives 
to nuclear power, the holistic health 
movement, and encouragement of human 


Chicago Area Faculty 

For a Freeze on 

The Nuclear Arms Race 

Your Colleagues 


• • • there may BE 
no later . • . 



APRIL 16, 1983 




By CLAIRE SHERMAN THOMAS, J.D., University of Michigan. Lecturer, University 
of Washington. West Publishing Co., Nutshell Series, St. Paul, Minn. I 982 
ISBM 0-3U-65663-J* Soft Cover $7.95 

CONCISE, complete survey of sex discrimination law, ^00 pages 

TABLE of 500 cases, Supreme Court, state and regional citations 

EMPLOYMENT: Title VII; Equal Pay Act; sexual harassment; comparable worth 

EDUCATION: Title IX; single sex schools; sexbiased texts and materials 

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS: experiences of sixteen states 

CRIMINAL LAW: draft registration; rape; prostitution; domestic violence 

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: abortion, sterilization, product liability 

Women and the Law in Washington State 

prepared by NORTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, a nonprofit organization with 

the sole objective of securing equal rights for women through law 
Madrona Publishers, Inc., Seattle 

Both books available: from your bookstore or from Northwest Women's Law 
Center, 701 Northeast Northlake Way, Seattle, WA, 98105 (206) 632-8^60 



ISSN 0736-4733 


While this publication continues to 
grow very slowly in number of paid sub- 
scribers, there are other indices of 
growth that continue to extend our 
voices and increase our visibility. We 
think that it is significant that thir- 
teen libraries have added us to their 
serials collection. We are archived in 
ten women's studies programs and femi- 
nist organizations in this country and 
one international archive in Amsterdam. 
We exchange complimentary subscriptions 
with 19 other small presses and feminist 
magazines. Our subscribers live in 37 
states and six foreign countries. Thanks 
to the expertise of librarian Elizabeth 
Ohm, we are now indexed, or have applied 
for indexing in Ulrick's International 
Periodicals for College Libraries, Wom- 
en's Studies Abstracts, and the Inter- 
national Directory of Little Magazines 
and Small Presses. Bill Katz , of the 
Library Journal , has informed us that 
he will review The Creative Woman in a 
forthcoming issue. In a review by Bruce 
Allen, The Christian Science Monitor 
described us as one of the best of the 
little magazines and wrote, "The real 
point ... is the spirit of gritty re- 
sourcefulness that keeps these vital, 
valiant, necessary publications going." 
Thanks, Mr. Allen! And one more sign 
of maturity is the assignment by the 
Library of Congress of an ISSN (Inter- 
national Standard Serial Number) which 
will appear henceforth on the masthead 
of every issue, and which means that we 
will be cataloged and included in many 
data bases throughout the United States. 

What we need, as well as "gritty 
resourcefulness," to maintain the publi- 
cation of this quarterly, is many more 
subscribers and friends who will also 
make a donation to this cause. If each 

reader will order a gift subscription 
for a friend, our paid subscribers will 
jump from 260 to 520. And for those who 
wish to support us with a donation, we 
ask that you make the check payable to: 

The GSU Foundation 

Please be sure to identify your gift as 
"restricted donation for The Creative 
Woman . " For donors of $25 or more we 
shall send as a token of our thanks, a 
framed print from our collection of 
feminist art and art of special appeal 
to women. To receive your free framed 
print, simply advise us of your choice 
from among the following sets: Judy 
Chicago's Dinner Party, Contemporary 
American Women Artists, Botticelli's 
Primavera, or Sierra Club Wilderness 

You will receive our heartfelt 
thanks, your framed print, and the 
good feeling that The Creative Woman 
will continue to publish the thoughts, 
ideas, works and dreams of women and 
that you had a hand in making it 
happen. ^ 



Act IV Scene 1 

Portia: The quality of mercy is not strain' d; 
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven 
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless'd; 
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 

Miss Laura Keene, New York, 1859 


Make checks payable to The Creative Woman/GSU. 
Please send me The Creative Woman for one year. Enclosed is my check or money order for $ 

$ 7.00 regular subscription 

$ 9.00 foreign subscription 

$10.00 donation and automatic subscription 

$15.00 institutional subscription 

Return to: The Creative Woman 

Governors State University 
Park Forest South, IL 60466 





, CreatrOe 

Nonprofit Org. 
U.S. Postage Paid 
Park Forest South, IL 
Permit #178 

Governors State University 
* Park Forest South, IL 60466